I've written both corporate/sponsored journalism and the "real thing" a news story and/or features for legit publications.

With the later, the writer has only one "deliverable" when writing the story—to tell the truth as best you can.

Involve a client (sponsor) in the process and suddenly you have a handful of "deliverables" (they are paying after all and money buys them what they want).

All the writer's deliverables for a client/sponsor have to do with staying on the sponsor's message (either subtly or not so subtly).

The content may indeed be real and some of it may even be of value, but what's been left out in service to the sponsor? What facts have been shaped to support the sponsor's message? What oversight did they have in approving the final edit? What changes did they make? There is no way of telling.

The real loser in all of this is the reader who doesn't know what he or she doesn't know.

Onomatopoeias have never been my thing.

So I don't know how to express in writing the noise of me sucking in air over my teeth with right mixture of alarm and utter despondency.

I loved my career in journalism before moving over to PR around eight years ago.

Those I know in journalism remain as committed as ever to news values and delivering coverage that informs and entertains in an ever tougher environment.

It's those people still working in news who I try to empathise with when reading about this.

This is a fundamental transgression of such wrongness it must make them ache to their marrow.

The vibrations of indigantion make me feel like my shins are splitting

Interesting to read the comments to your post. Seems they are split down the middle, not the least bit surprised / cynical vs the idealistic “cant believe that happens”. I fall on the cynical side. Big ad buy = favourable editorial, is the way small newspapers have been working since I have been in the industry (10 years). Famously the Ottawa Xpress does a “best ____” (restaurant, sandwich, theatre, etc) every year. Results are not done by vote (as claimed) but by ad buy. I’m not comparing the Xpress with the Toronto Star, nor am I comparing “best of” polls to “real” editorial, however the credibility issues are the same.

In my honest opinion, I don’t have a problem with “buying” a favourable story, as you rightly point out, it’s a win / win situation for the newspaper and for the PR professional. Exclusivity for your product does not necessarily mean poor journalism. When discussing cars, I rarely see anybody talk about the Lada. What would be a disturbing turn of events is buying your way out of a bad story, (hey we found out your breaks don’t work… wanna buy a full page…”). As I said, I fall on the cynical side, and to me, that’s not a big leap.

I think it's been a pretty common practice for publications to ask for the purchase of editorial coverage, but maybe not in such a blatantly open manner. The usual scenario is - sure, we'll give you some coverage, then we'll sell you an ad, and our "relationship" begins. Tit for tat, as they say. As someone who launched and had to promote a bare bones start-up consumer product company with no budget at all for adverstising, I was out there trying to get as much editorial coverage as I could. I did get pretty good coverage, but when I consistently had to reject pitches to buy advertising because we simply didn't have the money, the coverage seemed to be harder and harder to get. I'm not sure there is such a thing as unbiased news. I'm not sure there ever was. We are humans not machines after all. I'm not saying that I think this is a great approach to getting editorial coverage, but I don't think this is earth shattering news. I just don't think anyone has come out and said it so openly. It's usually just a wink, wink kind of thing and everyone knows what's expected.

We have to accept that the media has to make money to exist - whether that is from advertising, cover price, sponsorship or other means (something a lot of PR practitioners don't seem to appreciate).

If PR practitioners really want good quality, investigative journalism that has to be funded - and return on the investment of the publishers. But, I wonder if that's what most of the practitioners who are "shocked" by this publication's overt commercial attitude want.

Most seem to believe that their "news" should be reported (without interference from those pesky journalists) free of charge as endorsed editorial. Hell, it is pitched and written that way so that the media can basically cut and paste the release. Nice easy cutting, happy client - job done!

But as Ivy Ledbetter Lee noted over a century ago - that's about getting adverts printed free of charge and such releases (or pitches) should be redirected to the advertising department by journalists.

Unless we stop selling (isn't that what pitching actually means) marketing messages to the media pretending this is "news", whilst also telling clients to cut back on advertising, because PR is more cost effective, we can't be surprised that the media retaliates by charging for "editorial" puff.

Public relations has to be about more than "free editorial" (calculated in advertising value equivalent measures) if it isn't to be seen as an attempt at "free advertising". And why should publications give companies free advertising?

Good point. People will still need a credible place to discuss, a source they can trust. If a landscape like the one you point out occurs (e.g. page with editorial content + ads), probably customers will shift away to other places, where they can have discussions they can trust. The system will self-reorganize itself to that extent, don't you think?

I agree completely. I think if this becomes common practice, it would eventually cheapen the value of earned media. I would worry that readers would find out about it (which we know they will) and begin to question legitimate reviews or mentions, because really, it may not be so easy to distinguish between that and these "editorials".

Yet another desperate act by print media to hang onto the life jacket. Little wonder than consumers are turning to other consumers when researching potential purchases.

Mind you, I have to disagree with Mose. Out here in Asia, they've been saying, "Buy an ad and get a page of editorial" for years. They do it in the UK too.

Wow. That's a line we don't want crossed.

So, which newspaper was it? Is there some reason you're not allowed to tell us?

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think there is, or has ever been, objectivity in reporting. Each reporter has his or her own axe to grind and, especially on a slow news day, editors at large national newspapers will publish almost anything to fill the pages (i.e., to fill the holes between the advertisements). No one is "earning" coverage there.

The publications that don't strike a balance between the editorial and the advertising, whether they're separated or not, are bound to fail. No one will take them seriously and another publication will do it better and with more profits.

There is also a huge responsibility on editors to keep their own ethics in check when dealing with advertisers -- that is the future work of management-level journalists. It's no longer good enough just to "curate" the information.

As the editor of a niche publication which publishes sponsored and independent editorial, I know that I would NEVER publish sponsored editorial content that wasn't right for my audience no matter how large the potential revenue, nor would I attempt to mislead my audience to cushion the company's bottom line. I sometimes butt heads with the salespeople who sell our sponsored editorial content, but that means we just have to sit down and work out what's best for our clients AND our audience. I pick my battles wisely so my colleagues know that when I speak up about an ethical issue it's REALLY important.

It's definitely going to be a bumpy road, but I don't think this spells the end of so-called objective or investigative reporting. The system has been broken for a long time and there are plenty of opportunities to develop new ways of doing things. This is just the first incarnation.

If you have ever been in or near the trade magazine business - this is not news. This is what they do.

If you have ever been in a Board meeting at a newspaper - this is not new. This is how they plan.

If you have ever been at a radio station - this is how they make their living. radio has NO editorial! Unless they are reading a newspaper - which is how they get their news.

All media was invented to sell ads. That is why they are there. The Net has not caused a failure of journalism the failure is the failure of advertising. Advertising has not gotten better over the years. It has not kept in step with our overall societal make up - we are more sophisticated. Advertising is not. If we had great ads and great companies out there selling us great stuff the newspapers, TV, radio and mags would be all a twitter and falling over themselves making money.

Red herring. Sorry.

I'm disappointed you didn't publish this on the 1st, as I would have been able to laugh it off. This sort of reminds me of the recent Shell / Canwest "information feature" that didn't impress the Sierra Club too much: http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/ben-liadsky/blog/shell-canwest-bring-you-information-feature. This is not a good thing. Thanks to you for bringing it to light.

And what does this mean for the PR guy or gal unwilling to participate in something he or she feels is unethical? You win someone's business and then you're asked to pay for your coverage. Not only does the company stand on shaky ground, the representing firm does as well.

Scary stuff, indeed.

This sounds very similar to what many magazines have been doing for a long time. Having "sponsored" inserts/pages which blend into the regular magazine content almost seamlessly. In many cases, the layout is identical, with only the "Sponsored Content" moniker at the top differentiating it.

I can't imagine opening the Globe and Mail or any other newspaper and seeing such a thing. There are a lot of details here that remain unknown. I'm guessing the articles will be written by a staff writer, as opposed to the agency/client providing the content word-for-word. That's what's most frightening.

I'm also assuming that this is no longer "earned" media, at all, but rather such content will fetch typical advertising rates. I wonder what it means for earned media. Will it become even harder to pitch a story? Will the journalist simply ask you to pay for it instead?

Wow. The only things journalism has going for itself these days are its credibility and its pretty grammar.

You chuck that credibility out the window with blatant advertorial and zero division between the message and the selling, well, good luck to the future.

What's going to happen is pretty simple -- journalism's credibility is gone. Bloggers, who've been creeping up as the press goes, "HAHAHA, BLOGGERS WILL NEVER GET TAKEN SERIOUSLY," are suddenly given the opportunity to, well, get taken seriously.

Because bloggers, at least, have been forced into full disclosure.

Also, bloggers have only themselves to buffer when it comes to decisions about what "crosses" ethical bounds. Unfortunately, a "lowest common denominator" exists in all things, so, sure, there'll be asshat bloggers.

But then there'll the bloggers who set the standard for ethics.

Everything is changing, and everything will continue to change. I imagine we're in for another decade of dramatic upheaval, at the end of which no industry will remain the same -- not movies, book, films, news, nothing. EVERY model we've had for "how it's done" will be thrown out the window by 2020.

Which is good, because it's all bullshit now. I'm tired of journalists pretending they weren't bought and sold years ago -- conglomerates and heady business mixes made that all pretty dubious by the '80s.

Now there's just no illusions anymore.

Good. So, let's get real and see where it leads. Anywhere's better than here.

This has been standard procedure in many small-town papers, but mainstream? Scary stuff indeed.

Wow. Ok. That is scary. I had been noticing the trend on sponsored content more and more, but when they create a policy and process behind it, then its definitely mainstream and publishers believe it to be standard practice and accepted.

This begs the question of value. Where do I go to get value content in mainstream media and how does one define value? Is the content credible? Does the sponsored coverage offer anything to the reader that is worth reading? Because I'm willing to make a bet that if it doesn't, the publishing world is marching even further into decline.

As a former reporter, I'd say that this marks another milestone in the decline of print news coverage and journalism as a whole. When most news outlets are owned by large corporations, ethical considerations are viewed under a different lens.

To me, it just highlights the growing importance of being able to take your message directly to the consummer/audience. Why go through a middleman at all?