They are perfectly fine, especially if they are billed as advertorials. This is when a journalist writes the content he has been fed, in the form of a news or feature article. So it’s really an advert which is supposed to be of better quality because it gets the ‘journalistic treatment’. And maybe, just maybe, the reader might be tricked into thinking the advertorial is actually editorial, especially when the design elements and typefaces etc are similar.
Advertorials are a way for media to add ‘value’ for advertisers, especially if the media hasn’t got a marketing team in place to source for ads.
Yup, the journalist doubles up, which happens quite often for online media outlets – almost like an SOP. If the paymaster doesn’t like what’s written, you can’t get on your journalistic high horse and decline to make changes. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If you think this through, it means the line between editorial and marketing is no longer sacred. Readers want journalists to be unbiased – and here they are being deliberately biased. But the consolation is that the media are being transparent and upfront.
More in vogue are what is known as sponsored pieces. Also fine if they are clearly labelled as such. The journalist has some say here, because the pieces are more thematic than company or product based. So a bank sponsors four weekly articles on green financing, and the journalist can decide on what aspects to write about.
Of course, the bank expects to be front and centre in the articles. I have known some big corporations which insist that no rival or competitor should be quoted. Negotiations will follow – which is, to me, a waste of editorial time. But what to do? You can’t operate without funds.
As the years roll by and media outlets proliferate, we will see more tactics and techniques to get money to fund operations. One example: By offering a branding to deep-pocketed companies, like initiating a feel good series ‘brought to you by so-and-so’. Or proposing co-branding events, like seminars and lectures, which will definitely ensure coverage even if they don’t produce news.
Online media is particularly good at passing off advertising as perfectly acceptable editorial content. They come up with creative ways to put the focus on the advertiser, while shifting reader or viewer away from the initial and ultimate reason for the piece of work.
In all the above cases, the ethical principle is transparency. Sorry, but you will find this term being repeated in #berthabasics. Readers must KNOW what they are reading.
Most reputable media make clear (or almost clear) the fact that they took money for writing, whether with prominent logos or in large print. Some tuck it into a corner in small letters – or at the end of the articles.
Do readers care? Unless the writing is so cack handed and reads like advertising copy, perhaps some might look for the details that mark the article out as a ‘paid for’ piece. Most likely, most readers would make an assessment on whether to read on based on the headline.
The problem is when editorial standards have declined so much that even advertising, publicity and promotional pieces qualify as news. They are what is known in journalistic parlance as puff pieces.
You see this when the newsmaker or interviewee is the only person featured in the story, spouting off about something which isn’t even remotely newsworthy. It’s a platform for the person to get into the public eye. Or the piece is about a company’s scientific/technological ‘breakthrough’ – without the journalist doing independent verification or getting a second opinion from others in the field. What is known as a one source story.
Sometimes, it’s the words used in the copy which puts the newsmaker in a favourable light. Or simply adding many words making essentially the same point. What is known as ‘padding’.
Why do we even see puff pieces?
Several reasons. They could be produced as a favour for a ‘friendly’ newsmaker who has helped in the past. Or a show of appreciation for the deep-pocketed advertiser. Or because of commercial pressure in the form of ‘do it …or else I won’t advertise anymore’.
Frankly, I prefer the above excuses to the vague inkling I sometimes have – that journalists are ignorant about what makes the news and simply happy to have someone to interview.
Before you say government news is all like that, I would distinguish between policy pronouncements and political messages. The first is news we need to know, while the second needs to be assessed for its relevance and importance to readers at the time of reporting. Like, do we need another ode to racial harmony when we’ve read similar messages for three days running?
Now for tips on how to tell if you’re reading a puff piece.
First, do you find yourself cringing when you know that you’re reading self-praise however self-effacingly rendered?
Second, are there other voices in the article (not counting the newsmaker’s minions) ?
Third, is what was reported something you really, really need or even want to know?
Of course, some publicity-like ventures are worth reporting, say, NTUC FairPrice telling the media it’s absorbing GST increases for a month or six. Given its wide reach, it’s worth getting the message out.
The more diligent journalist, however, would give other supermarkets and retail players a call in case they aren’t savvy or quick enough to inform the media via a press release. Getting editorial space shouldn’t be left to the size of the newsmaker’s PR team.
Increasingly, that seems to be the case.
See insights
All reactions:
66Ariel Tan, Samy Rajoo and 64 others
Bertha Harian 