ads posing as news

[saturn]

I have been noticing this more and more. Especially online and on the radio.

 

For example, I just finished reading an "article" about online privacy and as I got to the end of the story I realized it was just one big effort to guide you to a new service that supposedly protects your online privacy.

 

I notice it on the radio too. The hosts will be talking about some subject and then very sneakily segue into some topic like weight loss or nutrition. Next thing you know they're talking about some "product" as if they're just talking on the show and they're giving out phone numbers and websites where you can purchase it.

 

It's all very underhanded IMO. I understand they need ad revenue. But to blur the line between commercials and the actual content just further erodes our trust in anything we hear or read by the media.

[ksdaddy]

I agree. If I am using a new prescription drug or there is a possibility of it, I make an effort to at least get the basics about it. I don't read all the fine print about a 0.00001% chance one leg will get shorter than the other, but just a little info. Lately I google something like that and seemingly find an informative artice.... until about 3/4 down the page when they reveal that THEIR herbal fix is much better for me. This negates anything I read in the article up to that point; that info may or may not have had credence but they blew it by trying to sell me snake oil.

[ChanMan]

Must be true, you saw it on the interwebz........

 

 

 

 

Marketing, It's the Debil, Bobby Boucher!

 

[Artie Owl]

I've seen some TV infomercials that will open as if it was a breaking news report with all the computer graphics of a 1998 junior high school project, then they cut to some cheaply done up set with two chairs and a fake plant and talk about the medical miracle that is Acai berry. Lame.

[Riffster]

Oh yea, you also see "articles" in magazines, if you look closely some read "advertisement" on top of the page.

 

There are also gear "reviews" done this way, basically an ad with glaring reviews.

 

It is very lame but once you are on to them you can see that train coming from a mile away.

[freak show]

I have a bigger problem with "news" posing as news.

 

Modern journalism is lacking in objectivity. Opinions are being "sold" to us in the guise of information.

[daveinspain]

So like, you just noticed this now...? Happens on talk radio all the time. Infomercials present themselves as regular TV programs. The news is the means to promote whatever it is they want to promote at the time. Eggs are good, eggs are bad, coffee is good, coffee is bad, etc

[Mark]

I think Paul Harvey invented that, and he was a master at it.

Good Day

[milod]

Freakshow...

 

There are a couple of ways of looking at this.

 

First, I think we've gone in cycles of effort to impartially display news - whatever the medium - and to respond to public interest. Frankly even those two quite often are in ways mutually exclusive.

 

Secondly determining "coverage" itself is a matter of an "agenda." Given that all current media are short on professional staff and cash, decisions of where to put time and money are a potential to bring a degree of criticism regardless how much the decision makers direct their organizations.

 

For example, let's say a newspaper in a mid-size community of, say 250,000, makes every effort to cover city hall, county government, schools, courts and crime, and sports. Other things will enter the mix ranging from a few big planned events and a few "disaster" type things, too, but... I can tell you that the arts community will feel cheated and so will some political special interests.

 

By political, I don't necessarily mean partisan national politics, but stuff like anti-billboard groups, etc. School "coverage" inevitably becomes political even on stuff like how math is taught, let alone lit and history or budgets.

 

I've seen quite a bit of that latter resulting in some pretty anti agriculture and anti "progress" coverage with no functional effort to tell the story of why a pipeline or powerplant is needed and any positive effects. Negative journalism and quotes from anyone against something tends to get far more play. Also, newspapers used to require letters with opposing view points to be signed and verified. That ain't the case with the web.

 

That latter is one reason "we" have put the brakes on a lot of positive life-improving basic infrastructure potential in regions of the world where urban populations are booming but have lost contact with production and transportation of "stuff" that makes urban life possible. Even flood control levees and dams have been dissed - to the result of more flooding.

 

Take the example of the "Great Gibson Wood Raid." Note we haven't heard much about that on the forum lately. Why? Odds are good that if it's not entirely bogus, it's so minor as to be functionally irrelevant. But it makes a good story we've all read. Is that good journalism meeting people's interests or is it going overboard?

 

My observation is that the Web makes it worse. Since I began in the news biz in '65, it's been no secret that on one issue or another, everybody knows how to do the job better - but mostly on their own personal issues that they want shown from their own perspective. With the Internet, those folks have a medium to express their inclinations and they, and their followers, consider it "news," not propaganda.

 

As for "advertorial," sorry, in the US it's gotta be marked as advertising if the publication is mailed. Broadcast media have to have ad disclaimers on their fake news advertorials but it's often missed. Internet search engines and such encourage advertorial at least indirectly. You young guys gotta learn how to see it in advance.

 

Here too, consider I dislike Fender necks. At what point will my "review" of a new Fender guitar be construed as "objective?" Or I love Korean food, so will my Korean restaurant review be "honest" from your perspective of preferring Greek food?

 

m

[Dub-T-123]

URGENT NEWS FLASH. GET YO-SELF SOME LIPOZINE.

[stein]

Very good commentary Milod.

 

I think, the main issue that underlines everything concerning media and advertising is the level of honesty that we have come to accept, and the importance (or irrelevance) of the concept of the truth.

 

To some, misleading information or hiding true facts is not considered lying, while to some it is. And even there, to a greater extent, is that depending on the point of view, it may not even be considered unethical. And, the more acceptable it seems to be, the harder it is to actually find the truth or give it any value. A more accurate way to see it is that we often give MORE value to things that are not truthful, and are more forgiving of people who are less than truthful.

 

So, really, we can not blame the media or the method of gathering facts and reporting, but rather the media is an accurate representation of what society has deemed meaningful and acceptable.

 

The "ads posing as news" is a perfect example. We may find it irritating, but WE are expected to be able to see it as misleading. We do not hold these advertisements to anything like a standard that says if it is misleading or has the potential (OR INTENT) to mislead it is unethical.

 

And, when it comes to the desire to inform, it is considered important to get your message across. To that end, if the message allows for misinformation or ideas that are not accurate, or even CREATES a point of view that only supports the intent of the message, we accept it. The accuracy (truth) and acceptance of the truth is below the message and intent of the person(s) wanting to spread a message.

[milod]

Stein, there also are a number of other factors involved.

 

For one thing, neither print nor radio nor TV have the "space" for full coverage even of material most of us would consider "news."

 

I've covered true "news" that without photos I could write about, observed facts and quotes, for two broadsheet newspaper pages after being on scene for perhaps four hours or even less. Add photos and ... where would one put sports and obituaries?

 

For another, I'm not sure the degree to which "news" isn't colored by the audience.

 

As an example, I could not care less about new Fender solid bodies, but if I were to be editing a rock guitar oriented magazine, I'd probably make a big deal about it.

 

In fact, you may or may not be surprised how many consumer specialty publications, guitars to skis, motorcycles to needlework, have reviewers I think probably truly try to be honest - but often the selection of products depends on advertising in the publication.

 

In a sense, that's not just a "dollar-oriented" editorial policy, but rather one that considers if a manufacturer does not believe the magazine is important to getting his product out to its potential customer base, why should the magazine?

 

Running a publication of any sort - or a radio or tv show or even an Internet site - is a different game when the shift is made from amateur to professional so one can eat from the proceeds, too. One need not lie to realize whence comes his supper. And when's the last time you saw a Commodore 64 magazine in the grocery store?

 

Regional factors enter in too. I really personally get miffed at people I've seen destroying local forests under the guise of being "environmentalists." Ditto rangeland, our nation's food supply... Why? It's a different perspective when you see maybe 5 percent of regional decent paying jobs go up in smoke or to tree diseases when logging is made illegal and you quadruple the number of trees to be killed by beetles and then burn in huge forest fires.

 

But urban journalists tend to believe enviros and I tend to believe facts. I've even been called a liar and manipulator of photos when I've shown pix of South Dakota's Black Hills forests in 1874 that showed almost no trees compared to current photos where they're as thick as sand on the sea shore.

 

Expand the above factors by infinity and you've got the reason "news" and "truth" can be somewhat different regardless of absolute commitment to integrity.

 

m

[Lungimsam]

I am sick of all ads these days. Everyone is constantly begging us to buy their stuff.

Especially online now where you have to watch not only one but two ads before your news video starts.

 

They outta get rid of money and start using love to ensure everyone has enough of what they need.

[TommyK]

Maybe the video media and internet media need to be required to follow print media where by advertising disguised as an article or news is identified by big letters at the top, "ADVERTISEMENT." Not in letters 2 pixels high, but a font at least as tall or half as tall as the 'article's title.

 

The lack of media objectivity seemed to begin with the retirement of Walter Cronkite. Too often the so-called reporters provide a slanted view of the subject at hand. Whether it is a political figure, or snail darter fish.

 

We were embroiled in a NIMBY circus a couple years ago, in my community. It was great entertainment to watch NIMBY's and the YIYBY's (Not In My Back Yard / Yes In Your Back Yard) pleading their case. BOTH sides slanted their view, BOTH sides cited dubious science, BOTH sides stretched and yes, broke the truth. Fortunately the local media are staffed with real reporters. They reported the meetings in a balanced fashion. Had this become a national issue, I suspect the so-called talking heads of the Big Three ABC, NBC and CBS would have spoon fed us their slanted reporting.

 

Local reporters seem to be real reporters. National ones... need to sell what sells.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

Tommy, you apparently have seen the local "reporters" in my area, Eugene, Oregon. Total amateurs. It might be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Corporate media is really one big advertisement for the status quo.