16 ms·
Uber, Google and others pay London Evening Standard for favorable coverage
- danso 8y agoThe few details actually asserted -- "the partners have also been promised a special monthly print section themed to individual projects" -- sounds very much like native advertising. There's also an omission of details about how the paid editorial coverage would logistically work, e.g. how reporters/editors would be assigned stories, and what direct control, if any, the client would have over the news staff. So this basically sounds like native advertising and sponsored content, via special inserts. This is something that traditional media has done for awhile: http://www.tbrandstudio.com/ http://www.tbrandstudio.com/ https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/house-of-cards/the-ascent/271/ https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/house-of-cards/the-asc... The other part of this is that paid editorial content -- i.e. news stories that are not disclosed as being ads -- would seem to violate the UK's advertising standards: https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/02.html https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/02.ht... https://www.asa.org.uk/news/online-influencers-is-it-an-ad.html https://www.asa.org.uk/news/online-influencers-is-it-an-ad.h...
- SCdF 8y agoI'm not sure what you mean by asserted, but the article does say this: > the six partners have also been promised the Standard will carry “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment pieces that will appear to readers as routine, independently written editorial. I agree that sounds like it would run afoul of the ASA
- danso 8y agoAh good catch: > positive news and “favourable” comment pieces that will appear to readers as routine, independently written editorial. Also worth noting that the Evening Standard is apparently a free newspaper, similar to Metro New York, which doesn't exactly have high editorial standards. But as the preceding paragraph in the story notes: > An increasing number of British newspapers often carry “native advertising”, essentially paid-for commercials designed to look like independent editorial articles. -- the point of "native advertising" is to appear to look like independent editorial. So it's still not clear that this "London 2020" is different than that. What would make it different is if there were more details about how this content would actually be published -- e.g. in the normal news section versus the special inserts, and/or via regular writers versus PR staff.
- jameshart 8y agoThe Evening Standard wasn't a free paper until 2009, and it is essentially, historically, London's local paper. In terms of expected journalistic standards, its reputation would put it alongside traditional Fleet Street midmarket tabloids like the Mail or the Express, rather than a typical ad-led freesheet. Whether this kind of activity would be considered below the standards you would expect of those papers probably depends on your perception of the broader ethics of the British press.
- jasonlotito 8y agoThe "money-can't-buy" quote is only around those three words, and I couldn't find the part where it says positive in the image of the slide. Did they post the other slides? While this doesn't look good, that line you quoted is misleading based on the information presented.
- michaelt 8y agoWell, presumably this is a leak from the Standard's own newsroom, so they'd be wary about releasing too many pictures lest their source be exposed, then fired.
- evgen 8y agoSo that would be a "no" on having anything more than an anonymously sources assertion from a partisan organisation.
- george_morgan 8y agoQuite. The only 'sort of smoking' gun is that one slide. From which an awful lot more has been extrapolated. Looks to me like they've been a bit ambiguous with promises of earned media, which is a typical goal of conventional advertising campaigns.
- danso 8y agoThe logistics of how this paid content gets written by the news staff is kind of important, even if it seems mundane. Let's assume that Google is indeed buying favorable coverage. Who writes it? Presumably it'd be the tech reporter, on someone on the business desk. Who tells this reporter to do it? In other words, is the reporter part of this conspiracy? Or just their editor? If the reporter is not part of this conspiracy, how is the reporter compelled to write a puff piece about Google if their (likely legitimate) excuse is that they're too busy working on actual stories for their beat? At some point, that reporter is going to get annoyed and suspicious if they are repeatedly asked to stop what they're doing to jump on a random puff piece. How many stories does this deal buy? When are these stories assigned -- e.g. does Google have a year to assign X number of stories? Does this deal include the power to kill/subvert stories -- e.g. if a privacy fuckup becomes news, Google asserts the right to have prior review and make as many changes as it wants? Who is the contact person for this on Google's side? Presumably it wouldn't just be an advertising person, it'd have to be someone fairly experienced in PR. This is a long way of getting to the core problem: this kind of thing requires a committed conspiracy, especially in the face of possible sanctions by the UK advertising authority. If it gets exposed, besides sanctions, Google risks a massive publicity blowup. Having several editors in the loop is problematic enough -- it gets even shakier when you add in reporters who may likely rebel. As someone who has worked in a few newsrooms, I know I'm biased into thinking that journalists will do the "noble" thing and speak out. But I don't think I'm in the wrong in this kind of situation. Even in today's emaciated industry, journalists don't have much of a problem speaking up even if it means their jobs: - https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/univision.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/univision.php - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/denver-post-editor-resigns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/denver-pos... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/business/media/fox-news-analyst-ralph-peters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/business/media/fox-news-a... Note that it's not just adherence to principle at play -- journalists who make a brave public stand have a chance at getting hired by other outlets. It's not that news outlets can't have systemic bias or subservience toward commercial interests. But that usually comes via pervasive influence over time from a publisher -- i.e. the fable of the frog not jumping out of a slowly heated pot of water. One of the best known examples of a newspaper selling out that I can think of is the LA Times' 1999 arrangement with the Staples sports center to share revenue from an issue devoted to positive coverage of the center: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/04/business/the-media-business-ex-publisher-assails-paper-in-los-angeles.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/04/business/the-media-busine... A few editors were apparently in the know. But once others outside of the conspiracy caught on, it immediately blew up into a major scandal.
- bcheung 8y agoWith those you can normally distinguish what is paid advertising and what is the publication itself. This sounds like it violates that.
- robertAngst 8y agoHow many google shills visit here?
- forapurpose 8y ago> few details actually asserted Perhaps the article has changed since the parent, read it, but there are many details asserted. > promising them “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment coverage > set to include “favourable” news coverage of the firms involved, with readers unable to differentiate between "news" that is paid-for and other commercially-branded content. > Unbranded news stories, expected to be written by staff reporters – but paid for by the new commercial “partners” as part of the 2020 deal – have already been planned for inclusion in the paper’s news pages within a week of the project’s launch. > paying partners were told that their company’s own planned communications and marketing strategies could be coordinated with the Standard’s news coverage. > The Standard would trail positive “news” from the six 2020 partners, with other news organisations and media outlets expected to follow. > Another executive was told the “money-can’t-buy” campaigns in the Standard aimed to create “news that will make news, but news that comes with a positive message.” > According to one insider: “What was being offered was clear – theatrically constructed news, showing everything good being done." That's only from maybe 60% of the article
- branchless 8y agoEvening Standard is edited by a graduate of School For Scoundrels. George Osborne went to Eton. All a bit Cambridge Analytica.
- accnumnplus1 8y agoI think counter-comment would have been more useful than down votes. Alas, broken by stubborness beyond golang generics. I think you have a point - my impression of Osborne is that he has little interest in anything beyond money.
- rjsw 8y agoThe comment is factually incorrect, George Osborne did not go to Eton.
- accnumnplus1 8y agoThanks, that's clearer than making the text change colour.
- f_allwein 8y agoFor people outside of London, it is worth pointing out that the Evening Standard is handed out for free daily at every corner, while still having strong political views. I stopped reading it when it told me to vote for David Cameron...
- thaumasiotes 8y ago> it is worth pointing out that the Evening Standard is handed out for free daily at every corner, while still having strong political views "While"? Those are two things I would expect to go together. Free literature is generally free because it expresses someone's views, and that someone wants to persuade.
- ajhurliman 8y agoSo they don't have much of a reputation to tarnish in the first place then? That makes this story a lot less news-worthy in that case.
- fyfy18 8y agoI wouldn’t say the issue is really the reputation, people read the paper because it’s literally stuffed in their face. When you are on a train for 30 minutes with no data or WiFi, there’s not much else to do. By circulation, the Standard and Metro are both in the top 5 newspapers in the U.K - but the actual readers are probably higher as you regularly find these papers left on public transport and coffee shops.
- adw 8y agoIt is edited by George Osborne, who was the #2 to David Cameron in the Conservative Party and Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister, definitely the second most powerful Cabinet role) in all of his governments.
- Reason077 8y agoGeorge Osborne became editor after he got fired from the government following the Brexit vote. The Evening Standard is pretty consistently negative on Brexit and negative on the current Prime Minister, Theresa May. Both of which are consistent with Osborne's views, I'd imagine.
- sdhgaiojfsa 8y agoThis is surprising if true. Surely any of these companies would realize that the reputational risk of signing up for such a scheme is much larger than the relatively minuscule benefits it might offer. I would like to see some evidence.
- usrusr 8y agoNot necessarily: many people kind of assume the worst anyways, but without getting terribly riled up about it. To them, confirmation will read like tautology, hardly newsworthy. Those same people will tend to be sceptical of puff pieces, but if they occasionally let their guard down the positives might outweigh the negatives even if the conspiracy does come to light.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoGoogle's been paying off academics to make fake academic studies for years. Nobody seems to bat an eye about it anymore, so presumably, these companies have realized that paying people to pretend they have independent opinions about you doesn't actually hurt your reputation much.
- grandmczeb 8y ago> Google's been paying off academics to make fake academic studies for years. Example?
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoHere's the biggest one, GMU and "Professor" Joshua Wright, the former FTC Commissioner: https://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/googles_insidious_shadow_lobbying_how_the_internet_giant_is_bankrolling_friendly_academics_and_skirting_federal_investigations/ https://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/googles_insidious_shadow_lo... (Note the date, this became known back in 2015.)
- aphextron 8y agoLiterally every tech company ever buys press releases under the guise of goodwill endorsement. Why is this news?
- Simulacra 8y agoThe tech news industry aside, would anyone have insight into how prevalent paying for positive news coverage is? Better still: Is there a transparency index of news organizations ?
- mrep 8y agoWell, a lot of news comes from PR agencies which are paid to promote stories to news agencies for companies per http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html Definitely worth a read.
- aunty_helen 8y agoMy favourite pg essay. There's also https://www.reddit.com/r/HailCorporate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HailCorporate/
- weber111 8y ago2005 must have been nice: "Online, the answer tends to be a lot simpler. Most people who publish online write what they write for the simple reason that they want to. You can't see the fingerprints of PR firms all over the articles, as you can in so many print publications-- which is one of the reasons, though they may not consciously realize it, that readers trust bloggers more than Business Week... Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese. It's people writing what they think."
- black6 8y agoThe guys over at the No Agenda Podcast have been on top of native advertising for years. Almost every one of the semi-weekly episodes has a native ad example.
- Simulacra 8y agoIn the Morning to You!
- 8y ago
- ironjunkie 8y agoThose same companies pretending to work for a "Better world". I seriously cannot understand how some people (mainly employees drinking the Koolaid) still buy into it.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- calibas 8y agoPowerful international entities motivated almost solely by greed are your friends! The whole world would just fall apart without them, according to the media and politicians they control.
- krageon 8y agoPerhaps they want to eat better and more often than most other people, and the party line doesn't really factor into that?
- Jerry2 8y agoThe worst part is how so much gets censored on HN. I've seen dozens of stories that are negative of Google get flagged and removed. For example, NY Times had a story on Google's Pentagon contract today and the story got flagged and you cannot submit it anymore. I guess HN is complicit in all this censorship for some reason. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project-maven-pentagon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project...
- weiming 8y agoAn interesting example might be WaPo, with Jeff Bezos literally being the owner of a major publication. Are there any examples of biased/helpful coverage? Curious how much the ownership affects the editorial angle.
- gkoberger 8y agoAs far as I can tell, Bezos has stayed away from the editorial side completely. They've posted some negative Amazon content: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-too-big/2017/07/28/ff38b9ca-722e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/04/27/how-to-get-around-amazon-primes-new-119-fee/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/04/27/h...
- jameshart 8y agoYou bring this up presumably because of the tech company angle, to suggest that Bezos buying WaPo is somehow in the same ballpark of influence-purchasing that Uber and Google are caught up in here? That seems to be a slightly disingenuous comparison. For one, Bezos seems to be taking a pretty light touch on Washington Post editorial content, which probably makes sense for him as an owner, since it's probably worth more as a business if it has a solid editorial reputation. For two, if you're looking to cast aspersions on the editorial influence of owners, you'd maybe want to take a look at who owns the Evening Standard, since that's the paper whose coverage has apparently been put up for sale. It's Alexander Lebedev, billionaire Russian financial/aviation 'oligarch', who was literally a KGB spy in London in the cold war. But sure, I bet you're right to be concerned about the sinister motivations of a bookseller now he owns a newspaper.
- zerostar07 8y agoBut how can we trust you re unbiased?
- called_it 8y ago> For two, if you're looking to cast aspersions on the editorial influence of owners, you'd maybe The operative word here being "if". Not that it makes sense even granting your motive of wanting to cast aspersions, which you made up in order to to cast aspersions yourself, since it's not a binary choice. To call Bezos a bookseller is just fantastic, you're projecting a whole lot of laughability.
- flyGuyOnTheSly 8y agoWon't this obliterate any goodwill and trust that the London Evening Standard had with their readers? Or were they already a tabloid to begin with?
- antoinevg 8y agoI think the folk who really stand to experience grave reputational damage here are Google, Uber et al!
- electricwater 8y agoAll I could think of is fake news... I used to read the NYT religiously and believed their news was pretty good. Now, I just don't believe any newspaper. One example: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/trump-childrens-health-insurance-program-chip-cuts-2018.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/trump-childrens... now read this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-leery-of-trumps-cuts-to-childrens-health-program-1525822614 https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-leery-of-trumps-cuts-t...
- dannyw 8y agoCould you elaborate on how this shows NYT's journalism in a negative light, aka fake news?
- jakeogh 8y agoI could go on for pages, but a pic is worth... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg
- salvar 8y agoPlease go on for at least a paragraph, if you can. I don't think these pictures say much.
- jakeogh 8y agoID one or more people not mentioned here: http://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-staff-joking-a-1713336525 http://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-st... and I will say more than it's a frat, a cult, a club. It has nothing to do with informing people; quite the opposite, they are a flock of mockingbirds.
- salvar 8y agoWhat? Am I supposed to go ID some people off images on the internet? Is that your idea of supporting your argument?
- lifeisstillgood 8y agoSo the image in the article makes it clearer but this is a monthly "theme" focusing on "issues" affecting London in future - clean air, plastics etc. Each company seems to have been offered a branded sponsorship of a theme (Uber got clean air / electric cars, Starbucks said no to plastics). There is supposed to be "events" which is marketing speak for "we will bother doing it once then forget" One suspects Starbucks' pitch was heavily oversold on the day, and starbucks rightly took fright and reported it to someone hence the article. I am dubious there really is buying actual editorial coverage beyond what you get when you give a newspaper a million in advertising and the editor asks himself "do we really want to piss off a million dollar advertiser". That's not great obviously but it has been ever thus and until we find new news models it will be ever thus
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tannhaeuser 8y agoYes Google (and many others) massage the media landscape for favourable news. This has been going on for many years now. After all, Google is a company specializing in influencing public opinion. Though "sponsored content" (hidden ads) are required by policy or even law to be marked as such. At least the (incredibly uninspired) Google image brochure in this week's Spiegel (large German politics weekly similar to Newsweek and Time magazine) was. Time to recheck IT trends/fads as well. Think about IT coverage in this decade, or even before that: cloud (kubernetes being portrayed as the best thing since sliced bread), web frameworks (where React seems to have won this round of publicity warfare though since Fakebook is also a media powerhouse), the vulgar "HTML5 rocks" campaign to take HTML standards away from W3C for better or worse (so that browsers can have things such as geolocation, and for Chrome dominance), making it appear a grassroots effort, staged questions/answers on StackOverflow, voting rings to hide dissenting opinions, ...
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoGoogle doesn't appear to be very successful in its attempts to influence published opinion in Europe right now. The consequences of the planned EU copyright directive could be dramatic (not just for Google but also for freedom of speech, for small publishers and for AI startups) and yet big European publishers (including public broadcasters) are largely succeeding at suppressing critical reporting on the subject.
- albertgoeswoof 8y agoWhoever is paying for the newspaper owns the content. The readers aren't paying, the editors aren't paying, but the advertisers are. If any free or heavily ad-subsidised paper publishes negative content about one of their advertising partners, guess what happens? The contract gets pulled and a major revenue stream disappears, so if you're an editor of a free paper, you don't do that. There is very little integrity in a free paper, it's basically a propaganda leaflet handed out by large organizations to influence your behaviour, with a few crosswords in the back.
- twinefold 8y agoSo, what does this tell us about HN’s policies and moderation activities?
- oblio 8y agoDo they actually moderate stuff which is negative about YC? I don't think I've ever seen it. What does happen, in my opinion, is that negative comments get down voted into oblivion, which kind of makes sense. The objective aspect is that they generally make for low quality conversations and the subjective aspect is that you're complaining about people's livelihood (the age old: "you can not rely on a person understanding something if their salary depends on them not understanding it").
- ceejayoz 8y ago> Do they actually moderate stuff which is negative about YC? I don't think I've ever seen it. > What does happen, in my opinion, is that negative comments get down voted into oblivion, which kind of makes sense. "Downvoted into oblivion" would be precisely how I'd quietly moderate stuff I didn't want showing up on the site. Not saying it's happening, but "I don't think I've ever seen it" would be precisely the intended result.
- codetrotter 8y agoNothing? I’ve seen negative news about YC funded companies on the front page many times, and I think I’ve seen some articles that were being critical of YC somehow too. So I don’t think they abuse their powers for censoring negative news. Besides, HN is not the product, nor is it primarily meant to market the YC backed companies I think. HN is a forum for the startup community and its primary function for YC I think is to be a channel to attract people to YC.
- Tepix 8y agoIs this illegal in the UK? I believe in Germany it is.
- amelius 8y agoMaybe it's still legal if it says "advertisement" at the top of every page.
- jimduk 8y agoIsn't this an ethics problem ? And then isn't the question whether this contract as reported is fundamentally unethical, or at least considered to be unethical by the majority of the current UK populace. I would argue the answers to these questions are 'yes' and 'yes'. Just because previously newspapers have behaved unethically, doesn't change the matter. Newspapers often preach from the high moral ground/ 'courageously representing the views of the people' and the Standard is no exception. If the Evening Standard wanted to change what it called itself to e.g. a 'hand-out' that may be ok, but if it is claiming to be a newspaper written by journalists then this is not. I am not a journalist, but don't journalism ethics include the concepts of truthfulness, accountability, openness and independence amongst others.
- sireat 8y agoSome anecdata from early 90s: I had a seemingly reputable newspaper(Santa Barbara News-Press) offer to write a human interest story (NOT marked as advertorial) about my small business in return for placing some regular advertising with them. Being young and foolish I thought that was an ethical no no and declined. From then on I noticed how often there was a link between advertising and coverage in media. In Eastern Europe this is ridiculously apparent even in localized versions of US media such as Forbes/Nat Geo/etc etc. Conclusion: this happens all the time everywhere, if you spend money at some media, you get some say. Sure on occasion your money will be no good if your business becomes a hot potatoe issue.
- dredmorbius 8y ago"There is no such thing in America as an independent press. I am paid for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." -- John Swinton, 1883 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Swinton https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Swinton
- lgleason 8y agoJust like in the US swamp called Washington DC. An interesting factoid... at this years CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) in DC Google was very present. In the program you had things like Google appearing right next the NRA as one of the higher tier sponsors. https://twitter.com/DavisOliverR/status/966508011429810176 https://twitter.com/DavisOliverR/status/966508011429810176
- ryanobjc 8y agoThat article is long on fanciful rhetoric and short on actual facts and quotes. I’m still not entirely sure this is not just native advertising and wrapped front covers - common pieces in the free San Francisco paper here. I do feel like there’s a lot of “gotcha” kind of writing in this article - their prerogative - but I can’t help wonder if it’s just a coordinated attempt to attack American businesses. I also think there’s a presumption of goodwill for opendemocracy, and a presumption of ill will to the standard. What if things were completely opposite? The reason I run this thought experiment - remember the last time you read a newspaper article about an area of industry you’re very familiar with, and how incorrect and wrong it was? Why would you trust the veracity of every other article instead?
- celticninja 8y agoThe Murray-Gellman effect.