Journalists should be ‘entrepreneurial’ – but don’t sell your souls

Posted by Dominic Ponsford on 12 October 2010 at 12:25
Tags: Advertising, Advertorial, Journalism

Amid all the recent talk about breaking down the divide between advertising/commercial and journalism (see Marc Reeves, Greenslade and – previously Neil Benson – I thought it might be useful to note the ethical (and legal responsibilities) journalists still have.

I feel particularly strongly about this having recently been in contact with a young journalist writing for a niche publication that is little more than advertorials masquerading as editorial.  I suspect this sort of thing is increasingly widespread in these straitened times, especially on struggling smaller titles which are perhaps second or third in their markets.

The example  I came across seemed to be the ultimate example of what happens when weak editorial leadership caves in to an advertising operation which has decided to sacrifice all brand integrity to make a fast buck.

This is dumb commercially, because a devalued brand is worth less to advertisers in the long run and readers will ultimately see through what you are doing and vote with their eyeballs – thereby bringing down the whole house of cards.

But is also deeply wrong ethically.

The Advertising Standards Authority would rap a publication over the knuckles if it caught wind of this sort of thing, as it did with the Daily Express last year for publishing paid-for editorial.

The ASA code states:

“Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such.

“Marketers and publishers must make clear that advertorials are marketing

communications; for example, by heading them ‘advertisement feature’.”

The PCC Editors’ Code states (clause one, section one) states:

“The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”

Nothing could be more “misleading” than paid-for content being portrayed as editorial.

And finally the National Union of Journalists code of conduct states:

But doing this we have to remember that hundreds of journalists around the world have given their lives to tell their readers, viewers and listeners the truth. More than 100 journalists around the world are currently in prison because they refused to bow to the most severe government pressure.

If you are going to call yourself a journalist, be entrepreneurial by all means. But don’t sell your soul for short-term, self-defeating commercial gain.

Those who find themselves ever wavering should perhaps read again the posthumously published editorial of  Sri Lankan newspaper editor Lasantha Wickrematunga (who was murdered in 2008) ‘And then they came for me’:

“No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.”

PCC should review Editors’ Code to tighten up rules on advertorials

Posted by Dominic Ponsford on 12 August 2009 at 11:22
Tags: Advertorial, Express Newspapers, Journalism, Journalists, National Newspapers, Northern & Shell, Richard Desmond, newspapers

The Press Complaints Commission needs to take note of today’s ASA rebuke for the Daily Express and change the Editors’ Code to outlaw the hijacking of editorial by commercial interests.

The ASA found that the Express has been routinely publishing features solely to promote the products of advertisers.

It has been caught out in the most blatant cases. But who knows how many other times ad-sales staff have strong-armed journalists into obtaining positive name-checks for advertisers in features?

Every day journalists around the world are beaten up, murdered and imprisoned because of their bravery and determination to report the news “without fear or favour”.

The Press Complaints Commission is currently embarking on a wholesale review of its activities. It needs to look at including a new clause in the Editors’ Code stating that advertorial and promotional features should be clearly labelled as such and upholding the commercial independence of editorial content.

The Editors’ Code as it stands contains not a word about paid-for editorial.

Alan Rusbridger, Paul Dacre, Adrian Faber and the other members of the Code Committee need to look at this urgently. Because as the recession bites journalists are going to come under more pressure from desperate managements to sell press freedoms which have been fought and won over centuries for the price of a half-page ad.

Line between adverts and editorial must be clear

Posted by Press Gazette on 24 March 2007 at 11:41
Tags: Advertorial, Guardian, Journalism, Press Gazette Leaders

As Guardian Media Group chief executive Carolyn McCall told Press Gazette this week, national newspaper publishing nowadays is an extremely expensive business. Good journalism costs money, as does new technology and producing the content to put on new platforms.

So to pay for all that good journalism, the national press often produces content which isn’t really journalism at all, but which is financially lucrative enough to support the more noble stuff. Broadsheets have been known to bring out “country guide” supplements promoting outside agencies, who sell top dollar advertising to government departments in developing countries after no doubt wooing them with teh prospect of appearing in such well-known publications.

The “editorial” in the the supplements is often signed off by the clients themselves — but at least they are clearly labeled as sponsored sections and there is usually a waiver along the lines of “Times Newspapers (or whoever) is not responsible for the content herein”.

That’s why Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins was so right to sound alarm bells (in his own paper) about the Promised Lands supplement published in Society Guardian on Wednesday last week. He said it was state-sponsored PR masquerading as journalism to promote controvertial housing clearance projects.

The design, bylines and style all gave the impression that it was an integral part of the paper. Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed the words “Produced by The Guardian in association with Housing Market Renewal Partnerships” in letters 2mm high at the bottom of the front page. But even then they wouldn’t have known that the supplement had “sign off” from the Government client which had paid a cash sum to get their propaganda message across.

Owned by the Scott Trust, The Guardian has a unique remit which places editorial quality above commerical success. It should be seen to be setting the standard for editorial independence rather than blurring the line between paid-for advertising and journalism.

2 comments