Variety has long been seen as the definitive publication of Hollywood, doling out industry news and unhip slang for over 100 years now. In these days of blogging and citizen journalism, it has managed to maintain an air of respectability as well, to the point where a news story is not usually considered “confirmed” until it has been published by Variety. Stiff competition from the blogosphere is still taking its toll, however, and as the magazine slowly loses scoops and readers, it is apparently being forced to compromise itself in other ways.

Last week, Gawker broke a juicy story that calls into question the ethics of this prestigious paper. It would appear that they removed a negative review of a movie called Iron Cross (a Nazi revenge thriller that was also Roy Scheider’s final film) from their website after the film’s producers called to complain. Apparently they had paid Variety $400,000 for an Oscar campaign to support Scheider’s performance (which obviously didn’t work) and the person who wrote the review wasn’t necessarily authorized by Variety to do so (don’t ask me how it got published then). Needless to say, they pulled the review immediately, but thanks to the magic of Google, we still know it was there. Gawker also uncovered an e-mail from director Joshua Newton that would seem to confirm it.

Now a lot of people will probably roll their eyes and simply ask, “So what else is new?”, but this is a pretty sticky situation for a publication as big as Variety. If advertisers can dictate the editorial content of a magazine, how can it possibly maintain its credibility? And although this might seem like another win for the down-to-earth honesty of blogs, it’s hard to say that they are completely unbiased either with all the set visits, interviews and freebies being thrown around out there. Can you really trust reviews from anyone anymore? (Thanks to Kurt at Row Three for the heads up on this story.)