3 ms·

This reminds me of pg’s submarine article[1]. NYT is being paid to promote Metallica’s tour. Possibly because not enough old people want to go to an expensive c

• jahsome 3y ago
  How did you determine nyt is being paid to promote the tour?
  • msoad 3y ago
    Because that's how it works. Having a different list of songs to play in each show is not newsworthy at all
    • prawn 3y ago
      That’s not how PR and newspapers tend to work together - it’s rare that it’s a paid arrangement. The PR company pitches a story on behalf of their client (band, stadium, etc) and perhaps offers interviews or quotes or whatever. If it’s paid, there will be a disclosure. Otherwise, it’s just the paper needing content to sit alongside their advertising. (Wife worked in PR for a decade.)
      • version_five 3y ago
        I think this is what the OP meant, based on the essay he linked.
        • msoad 3y ago
          Yes exactly. If it was a direct payment they had to announce it. But it's corrupt payment and that's what pg's article is saying.
          • jahsome 3y ago
            That's a pretty heavy accusation to levy without a shred of evidence. The pg article doesn't describe direct payments either from what I read. It describes the symbiotic and borderline corrupt relationship but not money exchanging hands.
          • prawn 3y ago
            I don't think you understand pg's piece or how PR works. The idea is that the article is there because it was pitched by a PR agency rather than the journalist sniffing it out. The grain of sand that creates the pearl is from the PR agency. There's not a corrupt payment; the client pays the PR company, the PR company doesn't pay the publication. The PR company and their client don't need to offer a corrupt payment because they are giving the publication something useful - an easy start on an article - but it's at the editor's discretion whether it makes it to the audience. A newspaper/magazine/site wants to fill pages with things of interest. Sometimes it's investigative (though often these are built through tip-offs anyway), sometimes it's fluffier. The PR company is briefed by the client and then develops things to pitch that suit a particular publication. They build these relationships over time and don't want to destroy them with consistently bad story pitches. PG's article goes through this. If there's a business person profiled on the front of the careers liftout, that was the work of their PR company. PG estimated half of the news, but I'd guess it to be higher than that. Once you've seen behind the scenes, you recognise it in almost every article. I didn't read this Metallica article, but the client could've been Metallica, the venue, or something else. If there are quotes from Metallica, that will almost certainly tell you it was them. The writer doesn't need payment from the client or PR company because they are being handed an interview opportunity on a platter, or exclusive quotes or convinced that some other element of the angle will be of interest to their readers (stage configuration, etc).
• version_five 3y ago
  That's a good article, amazing how relevant it still is today (18 years later, though paradoxically not much has changed) The problem with this article is not just that it originated in a PR firm. The whole tone is bogus. This is the tone of someone writing down to their audience.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]