4 ms·
If there were no explicit advertising, companies would use other, hidden means to reach customers' minds. Today in the press we have a more or less clear distin
by taffer 7y ago
If there were no explicit advertising, companies would use other, hidden means to reach customers' minds. Today in the press we have a more or less clear distinction between advertising and content, and I think if we banned advertising it would create an unintended incentive that could lead to the destruction of unbiased journalism as we know it today.
- cwkoss 7y ago> companies would use other, hidden means to reach customers' minds. This is currently done extensively, despite advertising existing. So this doesn't seem like a valid counterpoint.
- taffer 7y agoI explain why this is a valid counterpoint in the second sentence of my post: Today in the press we have a more or less clear distinction between advertising and content, and I think if we banned advertising it would create an unintended incentive that could lead to the destruction of unbiased journalism as we know it today.
- cwkoss 7y agoI think the distinction between advertising and content is a lot more blurry than you realize. The majority of 'news' articles begin from some company's press release, product placement is common in fictional worlds, and journalists frequently self-censor to avoid displeasing advertisers.
- anoncake 7y ago> Today in the press we have a more or less clear distinction between advertising and content, You have heard of native advertising haven't you? Of course ethical journalists refuse to do this. They will still refuse when ordinary ads have been banned. On the other hand, ads make the press less independent. No matter how much you try to avoid it: If someone buys ads in your publication they have influence over you. Be too critical of them and they'll withdraw their funding. They won't openly threaten you, of course, because that is not legal and not necessary.