Saturday, 06 February 2016 / TRUTH-OUT.ORG
  • Why Ted Cruz Won Iowa

    While the attention of political pundits has already moved on to next week's New Hampshire primary, the outcome in Iowa provides an interesting preview of the road ahead. Cruz's win provides a clearer picture of GOP voters.

  • Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Roosh?

    Kelly Hayes of Truthout: "I am not afraid of Roosh Valizadeh. Because to me, he is not the face of rape. I am afraid because most of the women I know who have survived assault have not been abused by blustering creeps like Roosh."

NEVER MISS ANOTHER STORY

Truthout can deliver investigative journalism to your inbox every day, with no ads or sponsored content - ever.

Keep up to date by subscribing to our daily newsletter!

Optional Member Code

Flashing Too Little Editorial Integrity

Saturday, 11 January 2014 09:15 By Jim Hightower, OtherWords | Op-Ed

Attention, class. Here’s today’s new word: “Native advertising.”

OK, that’s two words. But it’s one concept, and it has nothing to do with indigenous peoples.

Rather, it’s a phrase sprung on us by the wonky wordsmiths of Internet media, who also refer to it as “brand content.” Translated, this means that these particular web pages on news sites aren’t articles. They’re paid advertising.

But the advertisers are pushing news outlets not to be too explicit about distinguishing between genuine news items and ad hustles.

How? Money, of course.

In today’s web publications — from such newbies as BuzzFeed to the digital versions of mainstays like The New York Times — there’s a blurring of the line between the publications’ legitimate journalistic content and the faux “stories” that are provided by marketers and designed to look like real articles from non-biased news sources.

For readers and viewers, the questions are obvious: Whose stuff is this, and what can I trust?

The best ethical response by online publishers would be to draw a bright line around all “branded content.” Perhaps they could add some flashing neon lights and honking horns to announce: “This is an ad.”

But no.

While Internet publishers say they seek journalistic integrity, they’re hungrier still for advertisers’ dollars, so their game is to flash just enough integrity without losing the bucks.

That’s a losing game for integrity. Media analyst Bob Garfield notes that the effectiveness of native advertising depends on it being confused with editorial content.

Eliminate the confusion, and the ethical failure diminishes, he says. But “what will also diminish, to near vanishing point, is the readership of those adverts.”

Any media so dependent on corporate money that it resorts to deceiving its audience is — in a word — “dependent.” Also, untrustworthy.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Jim Hightower

National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.


Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
GET DAILY TRUTHOUT UPDATES
Optional Member Code

FOLLOW togtorsstottofb


Flashing Too Little Editorial Integrity

Saturday, 11 January 2014 09:15 By Jim Hightower, OtherWords | Op-Ed

Attention, class. Here’s today’s new word: “Native advertising.”

OK, that’s two words. But it’s one concept, and it has nothing to do with indigenous peoples.

Rather, it’s a phrase sprung on us by the wonky wordsmiths of Internet media, who also refer to it as “brand content.” Translated, this means that these particular web pages on news sites aren’t articles. They’re paid advertising.

But the advertisers are pushing news outlets not to be too explicit about distinguishing between genuine news items and ad hustles.

How? Money, of course.

In today’s web publications — from such newbies as BuzzFeed to the digital versions of mainstays like The New York Times — there’s a blurring of the line between the publications’ legitimate journalistic content and the faux “stories” that are provided by marketers and designed to look like real articles from non-biased news sources.

For readers and viewers, the questions are obvious: Whose stuff is this, and what can I trust?

The best ethical response by online publishers would be to draw a bright line around all “branded content.” Perhaps they could add some flashing neon lights and honking horns to announce: “This is an ad.”

But no.

While Internet publishers say they seek journalistic integrity, they’re hungrier still for advertisers’ dollars, so their game is to flash just enough integrity without losing the bucks.

That’s a losing game for integrity. Media analyst Bob Garfield notes that the effectiveness of native advertising depends on it being confused with editorial content.

Eliminate the confusion, and the ethical failure diminishes, he says. But “what will also diminish, to near vanishing point, is the readership of those adverts.”

Any media so dependent on corporate money that it resorts to deceiving its audience is — in a word — “dependent.” Also, untrustworthy.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Jim Hightower

National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.


Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus