Journalism and advertising
The current dust-up involving bloggers participating in an ad program for Microsoft coming two days after the dust-up about journalists contributing to political campaigns reminds me of the confusion/disbelief some readers have about the proper relationship between advertising and journalism. Or, rather, the relationship as we practice it.
It's actually pretty simple: We're independent. Advertisers don't buy our news content. They buy the opportunity to have their advertising message delivered to readers of the paper in clearly identified ads.
We don't want our readers to feel they are being sold a bill of goods or not getting the straight scoop. That hurts our credibility far more than pandering to someone with deep pockets helps the bottom line.
I can understand that some readers don't buy that; it seems counterintuitive that we might bite the hand that feeds us. But ask an advertiser if they get preferential treatment on news stories and they will tell you -- sometimes with a bit of resentment -- that they don't. Some try, but don't get out of the gate. That's the way it works.
The business about donations to political causes is the other side of the same coin. We don't do it for the same reason. Do some journalists -- as some bloggers -- make a mistake? Yes. Our code of ethics covers it. Donating money to political campaigns and parties is prohibited. Donations to or memberships in organizations with political agendas should be carefully considered.
All this seems hidebound to some who prefer that we acknowledge all of our opinions, political and otherwise, but we aren't at that point yet, and I'm not convinced our readers want us to be.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Hi from Bangkok, Thailand.
I work in the media here, and being from the UK originally I do know about standards and ethics. However, in Thailand you'll find very few publications that are not influenced in one way or another by advertising. Paid-for editorial is pretty common, especially in magazines, but I've seen it too in some of the newspapers. It's so obvious sometimes.
I've introduced a Code of Standards for our staff similar to yours, but it's taking time to become accepted and acknolwedged. It will be worth it eventually because readers will know they can trust what they read is not influenced in any way.
Posted on June 25, 2007 5:34 AM
What about your Real Estate agent of the week articles? Those are straight-up advertising masquerading as news articles, no?
Posted on June 26, 2007 5:13 PM
Stay with it Andrew. The clarity of purpose will be worth it.
Brian, we don't actually have such a feature named that, but I think I know the thing you're referring to. It's in our TriadHomes section, which is labeled an advertising supplement at the top of the front page. Granted, the print is small. Do they masquerade as news articles? Well, only if you're not paying a lot of attention. The thing I'm thinking of this past Sunday was "Seven questions for Jean M. King." It's pretty clear that it's not a news article.
Posted on June 26, 2007 5:55 PM
It's an advertisement designed to look like a news article, just as the section (minus the small print) is designed to look like a regular section of the paper. It blurs the line you're drawing.
Posted on June 26, 2007 10:59 PM
The distinctions are that content in the feature you're talking about isn't created by or paid for an advertiser. The subject doesn't control the content or the publication of it.
I doubt many readers are different than you; they know what it is.
Posted on June 27, 2007 5:51 AM
Taking down the name Ronald McNair Elementary School at Reedy Fork and replacing with the name of Reedy Fork Elementary School deserves more than a few sentences. It is a big story. It showed that racial considerations are in order for a man that has been dead for over 20 years. The action of the Board of Education was an embarassment to Guilford County.
Posted on July 2, 2007 5:44 PM