3 ms·

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” po

by 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.

by SCdF 8y ago

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.