It's because the publications want to continue to get free stuff and they know that marketing will 'lose their number' if they gave honest (and not merely 'truthful') reviews.

The idea of reporters' neutrality being compromised is not new and, frankly, I'd venture to guess that a vast majority of reporters and/or their editors have already been compromised well in advance of today. I've been in the 'press room' at a variety of events and seen the swag, free food and entertainment offered up.

I personally don't find this ethically wrong, as we're not going to give them anything extra-special per-say, just an impromptu advert.

Now, if you REALLY want to have a field day with free food, go look over to Big Pharma and the doctors... I volunteer at one of the local hospitals. One day I was invited to one of the drug rep lunches... The next day, the same thing happened. I proceeded to seek out the free food for the next month. For one solid month, I didn't pay for a single lunch. After the month, I figured that I could probably go for eternity and be able to scrounge up a free lunch each day... but my conscious got the better of me, knowing that it's the patients who ultimately were footing the bills.

Sidenote: The drug reps are salesholes. Not doctors, not chemistry majors, not even science majors. They don't know a damn thing about what they're pushing, er, selling. During a few of the lunches, I watched a couple of Drs give the 'hole a total bullsh*t explanation of how they use a competitor's drug, etc. (The case in point was for anesthesia drugs) The rep found this info interesting, as it was new, and tried pushing their product. The Drs left and next set of Drs entered the room. The rep pushed their products, of course, then after awhile inquired about what she had just heard. One of the Drs replied, "Where'd you get that crazy idea from? The patient would walk right off the table if that's all you used." I tried not to laugh, but the rep knew she'd just been had.

But I also worked as an intern at a professional paper for a bit, and they took free food from a new company in town and they gave some coverage of all the people standing in line of the restaurant's grand opening. Was it a contractual trade? Probably not. Was it unethical? Possibly.

Since we were trading nourishment (if you could call it that) for service, we didn't feel obligated to support them or write good things about them (which we never did), which put us in the ethical green zone.

Having compared the two every week for a good portion of my college life, I can say that Domino's is clearly superior, though I'm still sick and tired of pizza till this day.

Someone should confirm if they're actually free, and then send me slice. I don't mind Domino's. Thin crust preferred.

So, here's the short version of the whole ethical debate.

If someone buys you lunch, you feel like you owe them a lunch in return, right? It's a pretty common feeling.

What if you're a reporter for The New York Times. You NEED to remain unbiased. You must not have any interests relating to the parties you write about, or your credibility is shot. If that free pizza from Dominos gets you to write about the company out of guilt -- or at least mention them -- then you've been bought. Oldest trick in the book, and such a tiny thing that it appears completely innocent.

This is why, when reporters meet PR people for lunch, the reporter must always pay.

Does that make sense? The argument is much more complicated than this, but a comments thread isn't the place to discuss it :)

Maybe "Time"'s Person of the Year should be "YOU (are actually an artificial corporate construct, and nothing has really changed)."