Closing Doors

By Janice Castro

Mobil snubs the Journal

Relations between business and the press are often prickly, but they are seldom worse than those between Mobil Oil and the Wall Street Journal. In a story about the oil business last month, the paper gave short shrift to a piece of news that the company thought was important-the closing of a Mobil refinery in West Germany-and devoted a separate story to a report that Percy Pyne, the son-in-law of Mobil Chairman Rawleigh Warner Jr., would benefit financially from the company's construction of a $300 million office tower in Chicago. As a result, Mobil announced last week that it will no longer have "anything to do with the Wall Street Journal." Said John Flint, a Mobil spokesman: "Specifically we will not answer their questions, on or off the record, provide them with any data or grant any interviews." Mobil, an account worth $500,000 so far this year, said it was pulling all its advertising out of the paper.

Mobil's boycott is the latest chapter in a long-running feud between the oil company and the paper. In a story published in April 1983 the Journal claimed that the son of William Tavoulareas, then president of Mobil, had sold ships to the company, thus raising questions about the ethics of such family deals. In strong letters to Journal editors, Herbert Schmertz, Mobil's vice president for public affairs, accused the paper of stealing company documents and conducting a "vendetta against Mobil."

Journal editors said last week that Mobil's move would not hinder their reporting efforts. Said Managing Editor Norman Pearlstine: "The fact that we don't always print articles the way Herb Schmertz or his staff writes press releases should come as no surprise to anybody. We'll certainly continue to ask Mobil for comment when it is appropriate. It is an important company."

While corporations sometimes withdraw advertising to protest articles they do not like, it is rare for a business to close its doors entirely to a news organization. Detroit's automakers, for example, have a selective boycott of television. Since 1980 General Motors executives have refused to grant interviews to reporters from CBS's 60 Minutes or ABC's 20/20 because the networks will not allow the company to edit the videotapes. Ford generally limits interviews with television reporters to brief exchanges. A Ford spokesman claims that when the networks edit a longer interview, "questions and answers can be taken out of context."

While sympathetic to Mobil, other executives wonder if the company gains anything by the action. Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca, who has complained about the Journal's coverage of his company, maintains that silence is not the solution. Said he: "You can't do it in the corporate world. You have to be accessible, and you have got to tell the truth." Says Exxon Spokesman Philip Wetz: "You have to communicate to have a chance of getting your point of view across."

The press also doubted that Mobil's boycott would work. Said Sheldon Zalaznick, managing editor of Forbes: "This is corporate governance by tantrum. They will not get what they want, which is a better-behaved Wall Street Journal." Zalaznick thinks Mobil will eventually realize that and reopen the door. When it does, Schmertz will doubtless have plenty to say. -By Janice Castro. Reported by Barry Kalb/New York

With reporting by Barry Kalb/New York