7 ms·

The few details actually asserted -- "the partners have also been promised a special monthly print section themed to individual projects" -- sounds very much li

by danso 8y ago

The 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 ago
I'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 ago
  Ah 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 ago
    The 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 ago
  The "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 ago
    Well, 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 ago
      So that would be a "no" on having anything more than an anonymously sources assertion from a partisan organisation.
  - george_morgan 8y ago
    Quite. 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 ago
The 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 ago
With those you can normally distinguish what is paid advertising and what is the publication itself. This sounds like it violates that.
- robertAngst 8y ago
  How 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 ago
Evening Standard is edited by a graduate of School For Scoundrels. George Osborne went to Eton. All a bit Cambridge Analytica.
- accnumnplus1 8y ago
  I 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 ago
    The comment is factually incorrect, George Osborne did not go to Eton.
    - accnumnplus1 8y ago
      Thanks, that's clearer than making the text change colour.

by danso 8y ago

SCdF 8y ago

I'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 ago
Ah 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 ago
  The 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 ago
The "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 ago
  Well, 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 ago
    So that would be a "no" on having anything more than an anonymously sources assertion from a partisan organisation.
- george_morgan 8y ago
  Quite. 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 ago

The 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 ago

With those you can normally distinguish what is paid advertising and what is the publication itself. This sounds like it violates that.

robertAngst 8y ago
How 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 ago

Evening Standard is edited by a graduate of School For Scoundrels. George Osborne went to Eton. All a bit Cambridge Analytica.

accnumnplus1 8y ago
I 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 ago
  The comment is factually incorrect, George Osborne did not go to Eton.
  - accnumnplus1 8y ago
    Thanks, that's clearer than making the text change colour.