During the 2013 C2E2 weekend, the most consequential development for the publication was not a panel announcement. It was the discovery that DC Comics had decided to restrict interview access after objecting to satirical coverage of the company and its editorial decisions.

The account describes a series of declined interview requests, followed by a conversation in which a DC marketing representative reportedly explained that future requests would be routed through the company and denied while the criticism continued. The outlet characterised the restriction as a blacklist; the episode also illustrates the tension between a publisher's media relations and a journalist's right to criticise.

For a small outlet, losing access to creators can look like a serious editorial disadvantage. This article argues that access is useful, but it should not determine whether criticism is published. Interviews, review materials, and promotional opportunities are forms of cooperation—not a substitute for independent judgment.

The access question

The account describes a broader pattern of unanswered requests and interrupted interview arrangements. It also notes that the publication had already moved away from writing solely in the tone expected by public-relations departments, choosing instead to mix reporting with satire and direct criticism.

That decision brought predictable friction. Some jokes missed their mark, and some industry readers disliked the tone. At the same time, the writers considered the change energising: it gave them room to examine publishing decisions rather than simply repeat promotional material.

The central editorial position is clear: access to creators may improve a story, but surrendering the right to question a publisher is too high a price for it.

Why editorial independence matters

The disagreement highlights a recurring challenge in comics journalism: publishers may control interview opportunities and advance information, but editorial decisions belong to the publication. A critical outlet can report on the industry without adopting the perspective of a publicity department.

That distinction matters beyond any one convention or publisher. Access can enrich reporting, but credibility depends on the freedom to ask difficult questions, evaluate decisions and make room for criticism alongside enthusiasm for comics.

Editorial perspective: This dispute illustrates the challenges surrounding press access and publisher relationships. The reported restrictions reflect the publication's account of events, while the wider questions about press freedom remain relevant.