3 ms·

> Does you find it somehow misleading? Apparently in 2019 it's not advertising unless it's misleading...

derefr 7y ago
Insofar as “advertising” is used as a kind of slur against pieces of journalism, it implies a kind of mens rea where the journalist was either paid off, or otherwise intended the piece to serve as PR for the company. Sometimes, as a journalist, you set out to report interesting and important facts; an the facts are such that just a bare reporting of them leaves readers with a positive impression of a company, no matter how you editorialize. A company is just ...doing something good, and good in a novel way. And that’s news! Just as much as if a company were doing something bad in a novel way. Presuming the piece was written genuinely, instead of being submarine PR, the journalist’s goal isn’t usually to get people to interact with the company (just like their goal with reporting of negative novel behaviour isn’t usually to cause a boycott—that’d be the job of an editorial.) Instead, the goal of such pieces is to make readers say “well—this changes things.” To make them think about how the world is going to be different for the presence of this new activity in it. Basically, to accomplish what speculative fiction sets out to accomplish, but with fewer tools in the toolbox. I can understand calling that “advertising” in some literal technical sense. But if you are intending to morally color the article by calling it advertising, while receding back to the claim that it is “literally, technically” advertising, then readers should be wary: that’s a classic motte-and-bailey argument† (despite the motte and the bailey both being “it’s advertising”—‘advertising’ is used in a different sense in each claim.) † https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  It's a puff piece plain and simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's misleading.
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    I'm trying to become a more discerning / critical reader of news stories. Mind expanding on what makes this a "puff piece"?
    - newnewpdro 7y ago
      As far as I can tell the only source for everything written about the company described is the company itself, and of course it's all flatteringly positive and endearing.
  - sk5t 7y ago
    Agreed, this article poses no challenging questions, and would be hard to differentiate from PR.

Insofar as “advertising” is used as a kind of slur against pieces of journalism, it implies a kind of mens rea where the journalist was either paid off, or otherwise intended the piece to serve as PR for the company. Sometimes, as a journalist, you set out to report interesting and important facts; an the facts are such that just a bare reporting of them leaves readers with a positive impression of a company, no matter how you editorialize. A company is just ...doing something good, and good in a novel way. And that’s news! Just as much as if a company were doing something bad in a novel way. Presuming the piece was written genuinely, instead of being submarine PR, the journalist’s goal isn’t usually to get people to interact with the company (just like their goal with reporting of negative novel behaviour isn’t usually to cause a boycott—that’d be the job of an editorial.) Instead, the goal of such pieces is to make readers say “well—this changes things.” To make them think about how the world is going to be different for the presence of this new activity in it. Basically, to accomplish what speculative fiction sets out to accomplish, but with fewer tools in the toolbox. I can understand calling that “advertising” in some literal technical sense. But if you are intending to morally color the article by calling it advertising, while receding back to the claim that it is “literally, technically” advertising, then readers should be wary: that’s a classic motte-and-bailey argument† (despite the motte and the bailey both being “it’s advertising”—‘advertising’ is used in a different sense in each claim.) † https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

newnewpdro 7y ago
It's a puff piece plain and simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's misleading.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  I'm trying to become a more discerning / critical reader of news stories. Mind expanding on what makes this a "puff piece"?
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    As far as I can tell the only source for everything written about the company described is the company itself, and of course it's all flatteringly positive and endearing.
- sk5t 7y ago
  Agreed, this article poses no challenging questions, and would be hard to differentiate from PR.