Comments on: A Dark Future For Journalism – The Editorial/Ad Wall Is Down

By: marylyn donahue

marylyn donahue — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:36:12 +0000

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.

By: Brands working with bloggers – it’s confusing — Stephanie Schwab: Socialologist

Tue, 18 May 2010 18:07:36 +0000

[...] the publications monetize based on subscriptions and ad revenue. The two are, in theory, held (more or less) strictly separate (more on that [...]

By: Radio Roundtable: A Trio of Twitter Topics…and “unearned” media « Media Bullseye – A New Media and Communications Magazine

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:31:46 +0000

[...] the two discuss the implications of a post by Dave Fleet outlining some new proposals being put forth by newspapers to PR pros. While the pair guesses that [...]

By: Beyond the Wire » Worthy on the Web – Week of April 9

Beyond the Wire » Worthy on the Web – Week of April 9 — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:55:01 +0000

[...] A Dark Future for Journlaism, by Dave Fleet [...]

By: Scott Douglas

Scott Douglas — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:46:10 +0000

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

By: Bob LeDrew

Bob LeDrew — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:34:53 +0000

I don’t call sources often, but when I feel I have to do some legwork on a post, I will. I can point to three examples of this on my blog that come off the top of my head: I did a series of posts on an anti-counterfeiting program at Hunter College in New York starting in February 2008 (http://www.translucid.ca/site/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=1297) where I spoke to IACC, to a PR expert, and others; I did a series of posts on the medical isotope crisis and talked to folks, including risk management expert Bill Leiss (http://www.translucid.ca/site/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=1210); and I spoke to a journalism student using Facebook ads to brand himself and posted the audio (http://www.translucid.ca/site/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=1791).

Don’t know how atypical I am, but that’s what I do.

By: Mike Edgell

Mike Edgell — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:09:35 +0000

In reply to this response to Dave’s post:

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

Yes, there are serious ethical fault lines in mainstream journalism, but let’s not get crazy.

Good and bad apples in both, but seriously, how many bloggers actually call sources or attend news events in person? (as opposed to reacting to something they read on the internet).

Good debate though. And Dave’s right, he is talking about content that is not labelled as sponsored.

By: shot7news (Richard Budman)

shot7news (Richard Budman) — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:08:50 +0000

Twitter Comment

Was it @TorontoStar that @davefleet was referring [link to post] RE: @mondoville ASH.MADISON ADVERTORIAL IN STAR? http://bit.ly/9ZOg0m

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: david (digitaljoy)

david (digitaljoy) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:00:05 +0000

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.

By: smarketingforum (SocialMarketingForum)

smarketingforum (SocialMarketingForum) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:02:53 +0000

Twitter Comment

RT @JP_DC: RT @princess_misia: A Dark Future For Journalism – The Editorial/Ad Wall Is Down [link to post] (from @davefleet)

- Posted using Chat Catcher