
Uber, Google and others pay London Evening Standard for favorable coverage - tomjakubowski
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/james-cusick/george-osborne-s-london-evening-standard-promises-positive-news-coverage-to-uber-goo
======
danso
The few details actually asserted -- _" the partners have also been promised a
special monthly print section themed to individual projects"_ \-- sounds very
much like native advertising. There's also an omission of details about how
the paid editorial coverage would logistically work, e.g. how
reporters/editors would be assigned stories, and what direct control, if any,
the client would have over the news staff. So this basically sounds like
native advertising and sponsored content, via special inserts. This is
something that traditional media has done for awhile:

[http://www.tbrandstudio.com/](http://www.tbrandstudio.com/)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/house-of-cards/the-
asc...](https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/house-of-cards/the-ascent/271/)

The other part of this is that paid editorial content -- i.e. news stories
that are not disclosed as being ads -- would seem to violate the UK's
advertising standards:

[https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/02.ht...](https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/02.html)

[https://www.asa.org.uk/news/online-influencers-is-it-an-
ad.h...](https://www.asa.org.uk/news/online-influencers-is-it-an-ad.html)

~~~
danso
The logistics of how this paid content gets written by the news staff is kind
of important, even if it seems mundane. Let's assume that Google is indeed
buying favorable coverage. Who writes it? Presumably it'd be the tech
reporter, on someone on the business desk. Who tells this reporter to do it?
In other words, is the reporter part of this conspiracy? Or just their editor?
If the reporter is not part of this conspiracy, how is the reporter compelled
to write a puff piece about Google if their (likely legitimate) excuse is that
they're too busy working on actual stories for their beat? At some point, that
reporter is going to get annoyed and suspicious if they are repeatedly asked
to stop what they're doing to jump on a random puff piece.

How many stories does this deal buy? When are these stories assigned -- e.g.
does Google have a year to assign X number of stories? Does this deal include
the power to kill/subvert stories -- e.g. if a privacy fuckup becomes news,
Google asserts the right to have prior review and make as many changes as it
wants? Who is the contact person for this on Google's side? Presumably it
wouldn't just be an advertising person, it'd have to be someone fairly
experienced in PR.

This is a long way of getting to the core problem: this kind of thing requires
a committed conspiracy, especially in the face of possible sanctions by the UK
advertising authority. If it gets exposed, besides sanctions, Google risks a
massive publicity blowup. Having several editors in the loop is problematic
enough -- it gets even shakier when you add in reporters who may likely rebel.

As someone who has worked in a few newsrooms, I know I'm biased into thinking
that journalists will do the "noble" thing and speak out. But I don't think
I'm in the wrong in this kind of situation. Even in today's emaciated
industry, journalists don't have much of a problem speaking up even if it
means their jobs:

\-
[https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/univision.php](https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/univision.php)

\- [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/denver-
pos...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/denver-post-editor-
resigns.html)

\- [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/business/media/fox-
news-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/business/media/fox-news-analyst-
ralph-peters.html)

Note that it's not just adherence to principle at play -- journalists who make
a brave public stand have a chance at getting hired by other outlets.

It's not that news outlets can't have systemic bias or subservience toward
commercial interests. But that usually comes via pervasive influence over time
from a publisher -- i.e. the fable of the frog not jumping out of a slowly
heated pot of water.

One of the best known examples of a newspaper selling out that I can think of
is the LA Times' 1999 arrangement with the Staples sports center to share
revenue from an issue devoted to positive coverage of the center:

[https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/04/business/the-media-
busine...](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/04/business/the-media-business-ex-
publisher-assails-paper-in-los-angeles.html)

A few editors were apparently in the know. But once others outside of the
conspiracy caught on, it immediately blew up into a major scandal.

~~~
pjc50
Remember when Peter Oborne quit the Telegraph?
[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-
oborne-t...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-
telegraph-hsbc-coverage-fraud-readers)

I don't think any more came of that. The cross-advertising in Murdoch papers
is so routine it's a regular feature in Private Eye. The British press is
largely a disaster area.

~~~
branchless
I remember. Uk is collapsing. This is the dregs.

------
tannhaeuser
Yes Google (and many others) massage the media landscape for favourable news.
This has been going on for many years now. After all, Google is a company
specializing in influencing public opinion. Though "sponsored content" (hidden
ads) are required by policy or even law to be marked as such. At least the
(incredibly uninspired) Google image brochure in this week's Spiegel (large
German politics weekly similar to Newsweek and Time magazine) was.

Time to recheck IT trends/fads as well. Think about IT coverage in this
decade, or even before that: cloud (kubernetes being portrayed as the best
thing since sliced bread), web frameworks (where React seems to have won this
round of publicity warfare though since Fakebook is also a media powerhouse),
the vulgar "HTML5 rocks" campaign to take HTML standards away from W3C for
better or worse (so that browsers can have things such as geolocation, and for
Chrome dominance), making it appear a grassroots effort, staged
questions/answers on StackOverflow, voting rings to hide dissenting opinions,
...

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Google doesn't appear to be very successful in its attempts to influence
published opinion in Europe right now.

The consequences of the planned EU copyright directive could be dramatic (not
just for Google but also for freedom of speech, for small publishers and for
AI startups) and yet big European publishers (including public broadcasters)
are largely succeeding at suppressing critical reporting on the subject.

------
f_allwein
For people outside of London, it is worth pointing out that the Evening
Standard is handed out for free daily at every corner, while still having
strong political views. I stopped reading it when it told me to vote for David
Cameron...

~~~
ajhurliman
So they don't have much of a reputation to tarnish in the first place then?
That makes this story a lot less news-worthy in that case.

~~~
fyfy18
I wouldn’t say the issue is really the reputation, people read the paper
because it’s literally stuffed in their face. When you are on a train for 30
minutes with no data or WiFi, there’s not much else to do.

By circulation, the Standard and Metro are both in the top 5 newspapers in the
U.K - but the actual readers are probably higher as you regularly find these
papers left on public transport and coffee shops.

------
ironjunkie
Those same companies pretending to work for a "Better world".

I seriously cannot understand how some people (mainly employees drinking the
Koolaid) still buy into it.

~~~
Jerry2
The worst part is how so much gets censored on HN. I've seen dozens of stories
that are negative of Google get flagged and removed. For example, NY Times had
a story on Google's Pentagon contract today and the story got flagged and you
cannot submit it anymore. I guess HN is complicit in all this censorship for
some reason.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-
project...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project-
maven-pentagon.html)

~~~
DanBC
Here's a thread with over a thousand comments. That doesn't sound like
censorship.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530)

~~~
Jerry2
Why was the NYTimes story from yesterday killed? Story you linked is from
almost two months ago. It definitely looks like censorship.

~~~
tomhoward
That NYT article received 166 votes and 198 comments [1], and was on the front
page for about 13 hours [2].

Sometimes stories drop off the front page if they have more comments than
votes, as it signals a flamewar, which makes for boring reading at best and
leads to uncivil behaviour or trolling at worst.

It would be pointless for HN to try and "censor" things that the community
wanted to discuss, as people would just find out about it and discuss it
elsewhere.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17192601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17192601)

[2] [http://hnrankings.info/17192601/](http://hnrankings.info/17192601/)

------
sireat
Some anecdata from early 90s:

I had a seemingly reputable newspaper(Santa Barbara News-Press) offer to write
a human interest story (NOT marked as advertorial) about my small business in
return for placing some regular advertising with them.

Being young and foolish I thought that was an ethical no no and declined.

From then on I noticed how often there was a link between advertising and
coverage in media.

In Eastern Europe this is ridiculously apparent even in localized versions of
US media such as Forbes/Nat Geo/etc etc.

Conclusion: this happens all the time everywhere, if you spend money at some
media, you get some say.

Sure on occasion your money will be no good if your business becomes a hot
potatoe issue.

~~~
dredmorbius
"There is no such thing in America as an independent press. I am paid for
keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. If I should
allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-
four hours my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone. The business of a New
York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to
vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race
for his daily bread. We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the
scenes. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

\-- John Swinton, 1883

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Swinton](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Swinton)

------
albertgoeswoof
Whoever is paying for the newspaper owns the content. The readers aren't
paying, the editors aren't paying, but the advertisers are. If any free or
heavily ad-subsidised paper publishes negative content about one of their
advertising partners, guess what happens? The contract gets pulled and a major
revenue stream disappears, so if you're an editor of a free paper, you don't
do that.

There is very little integrity in a free paper, it's basically a propaganda
leaflet handed out by large organizations to influence your behaviour, with a
few crosswords in the back.

~~~
twinefold
So, what does this tell us about HN’s policies and moderation activities?

~~~
tannhaeuser
We all know HN runs the occasional job ad and promotional piece, but I find it
acceptable given the educated target audience. Personally, I also like "Show
HN" where a startup CEO/tech lead gets flak, but also has the chance to expose
his product.

A more imminent concern is that, given the increased news frequency in the
last one or two years, many stories don't make it to the home page, and don't
get the coverage they deserve. Also, HN is somewhat prone to ring voting, and
I guess this is almost impossible to get under control, though it's not too
bad IMHO.

Both of these issues could be seen as inviting growth hacking or worse: the
first one to shadow negative publicity (a trick as old as the soccer world
championship); the second one, obviously, by making public reception appear in
favour of something, when in reality it's everything but.

Ok there's one issue I'm having with HN: too many pieces about machine
learning/big data, and stories being predictably offtopic'd by functional
programming nerds (but it's par for the course on HN, ycombinator and all).

------
sdhgaiojfsa
This is surprising if true. Surely any of these companies would realize that
the reputational risk of signing up for such a scheme is much larger than the
relatively minuscule benefits it might offer. I would like to see some
evidence.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Google's been paying off academics to make fake academic studies for years.
Nobody seems to bat an eye about it anymore, so presumably, these companies
have realized that paying people to pretend they have independent opinions
about you doesn't actually hurt your reputation much.

~~~
grandmczeb
> Google's been paying off academics to make fake academic studies for years.

Example?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Here's the biggest one, GMU and "Professor" Joshua Wright, the former FTC
Commissioner:
[https://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/googles_insidious_shadow_lo...](https://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/googles_insidious_shadow_lobbying_how_the_internet_giant_is_bankrolling_friendly_academics_and_skirting_federal_investigations/)
(Note the date, this became known back in 2015.)

------
lifeisstillgood
So the image in the article makes it clearer but this is a monthly "theme"
focusing on "issues" affecting London in future - clean air, plastics etc.
Each company seems to have been offered a branded sponsorship of a theme (Uber
got clean air / electric cars, Starbucks said no to plastics). There is
supposed to be "events" which is marketing speak for "we will bother doing it
once then forget"

One suspects Starbucks' pitch was heavily oversold on the day, and starbucks
rightly took fright and reported it to someone hence the article.

I am dubious there really is buying actual editorial coverage beyond what you
get when you give a newspaper a million in advertising and the editor asks
himself "do we really want to piss off a million dollar advertiser". That's
not great obviously but it has been ever thus and until we find new news
models it will be ever thus

------
jimduk
Isn't this an ethics problem ? And then isn't the question whether this
contract as reported is fundamentally unethical, or at least considered to be
unethical by the majority of the current UK populace. I would argue the
answers to these questions are 'yes' and 'yes'. Just because previously
newspapers have behaved unethically, doesn't change the matter. Newspapers
often preach from the high moral ground/ 'courageously representing the views
of the people' and the Standard is no exception.

If the Evening Standard wanted to change what it called itself to e.g. a
'hand-out' that may be ok, but if it is claiming to be a newspaper written by
journalists then this is not. I am not a journalist, but don't journalism
ethics include the concepts of truthfulness, accountability, openness and
independence amongst others.

------
ryanobjc
That article is long on fanciful rhetoric and short on actual facts and
quotes. I’m still not entirely sure this is not just native advertising and
wrapped front covers - common pieces in the free San Francisco paper here.

I do feel like there’s a lot of “gotcha” kind of writing in this article -
their prerogative - but I can’t help wonder if it’s just a coordinated attempt
to attack American businesses.

I also think there’s a presumption of goodwill for opendemocracy, and a
presumption of ill will to the standard. What if things were completely
opposite?

The reason I run this thought experiment - remember the last time you read a
newspaper article about an area of industry you’re very familiar with, and how
incorrect and wrong it was? Why would you trust the veracity of every other
article instead?

~~~
celticninja
The Murray-Gellman effect.

------
electricwater
All I could think of is fake news... I used to read the NYT religiously and
believed their news was pretty good. Now, I just don't believe any newspaper.

One example: [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/trump-
childrens...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/trump-childrens-
health-insurance-program-chip-cuts-2018.html) now read this:
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-leery-of-trumps-
cuts-t...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-leery-of-trumps-cuts-to-
childrens-health-program-1525822614)

~~~
dannyw
Could you elaborate on how this shows NYT's journalism in a negative light,
aka fake news?

~~~
jakeogh
I could go on for pages, but a pic is worth...

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-
WEAER49I.png](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png)

[http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg)

~~~
salvar
Please go on for at least a paragraph, if you can. I don't think these
pictures say much.

~~~
jakeogh
ID one or more people not mentioned here:

[http://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-
st...](http://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-staff-
joking-a-1713336525)

and I will say more than it's a frat, a cult, a club. It has nothing to do
with informing people; quite the opposite, they are a flock of mockingbirds.

~~~
salvar
What? Am I supposed to go ID some people off images on the internet? Is that
your idea of supporting your argument?

~~~
jakeogh
Why bother? I could post a pic of the people writing the articles you read
imitating Heavens Gate and you would still want me to "support" my assertion
that all is not well at the NTY. What do you need? Mock murder reenactments?

------
weiming
An interesting example might be WaPo, with Jeff Bezos literally being the
owner of a major publication. Are there any examples of biased/helpful
coverage? Curious how much the ownership affects the editorial angle.

~~~
jameshart
You bring this up presumably because of the tech company angle, to suggest
that Bezos buying WaPo is somehow in the same ballpark of influence-purchasing
that Uber and Google are caught up in here?

That seems to be a slightly disingenuous comparison. For one, Bezos seems to
be taking a pretty light touch on Washington Post editorial content, which
probably makes sense for him as an owner, since it's probably worth more as a
business if it has a solid editorial reputation.

For two, if you're looking to cast aspersions on the editorial influence of
owners, you'd maybe want to take a look at who owns the Evening Standard,
since that's the paper whose coverage has apparently been put up for sale.
It's Alexander Lebedev, billionaire Russian financial/aviation 'oligarch', who
was literally a KGB spy in London in the cold war.

But sure, I bet you're right to be concerned about the sinister motivations of
a bookseller now he owns a newspaper.

~~~
zerostar07
But how can we trust you re unbiased?

------
lgleason
Just like in the US swamp called Washington DC. An interesting factoid... at
this years CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) in DC Google was
very present. In the program you had things like Google appearing right next
the NRA as one of the higher tier sponsors.
[https://twitter.com/DavisOliverR/status/966508011429810176](https://twitter.com/DavisOliverR/status/966508011429810176)

------
Simulacra
The tech news industry aside, would anyone have insight into how prevalent
paying for positive news coverage is? Better still: Is there a transparency
index of news organizations ?

~~~
mrep
Well, a lot of news comes from PR agencies which are paid to promote stories
to news agencies for companies per
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

Definitely worth a read.

~~~
weber111
2005 must have been nice:

"Online, the answer tends to be a lot simpler. Most people who publish online
write what they write for the simple reason that they want to. You can't see
the fingerprints of PR firms all over the articles, as you can in so many
print publications-- which is one of the reasons, though they may not
consciously realize it, that readers trust bloggers more than Business Week...

Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery
meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed
into molds of zippy journalese. It's people writing what they think."

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
Won't this obliterate any goodwill and trust that the London Evening Standard
had with their readers?

Or were they already a tabloid to begin with?

~~~
antoinevg
I think the folk who really stand to experience grave reputational damage here
are Google, Uber et al!

------
Tepix
Is this illegal in the UK? I believe in Germany it is.

~~~
amelius
Maybe it's still legal if it says "advertisement" at the top of every page.

------
aphextron
Literally every tech company ever buys press releases under the guise of
goodwill endorsement. Why is this news?

~~~
danso
The article alleges that the companies are buying positive news coverage, not
just sponsored content/ads.

