
The invasion of corporate news - prostoalex
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Dz2wbYoI
======
typpo
I noticed a recent increase in the amount of native advertising, especially
poorly labeled "sponsored content," and built a chrome/firefox extension to
flag these articles [1]. It includes rules for the sites mentioned - Buzzfeed,
Mashable, Quartz, and Vice - as well as about 100 others.

Reactions from publishers and native ad companies were surprisingly positive -
some even reached out asking to me add their sites. In general I think a lot
of people in publishing are very conflicted about the problem because it gets
into journalistic ethics, which are deeply ingrained.

Currently an organization called the IAB provides the standard for the
industry, but it's vague and lags behind innovation in native ads [2]. Native
ads aren't necessarily bad, but their inconsistency that makes them very
deceptive to users. I think publishers would benefit from an updated set of
standards that enforce consistent messaging.

[1] [http://ianww.com/ad-detector](http://ianww.com/ad-detector)

[2]
[http://www.iab.net/nativeadvertising](http://www.iab.net/nativeadvertising)

~~~
hackuser
A great idea, thanks. A suggestion: If you could post it someplace that allows
user reviews, I'd be much more likely to download it. It's hard to tell if it
will cause performance problems, installs/uninstalls well, false-
positive/negative rates, identifies advertorials that I wouldn't find on my
own, etc. I could try it, but there are many, many add-ons to try!

That said, I hope it works well and becomes widely used. The publishers should
be putting that alert on their pages themselves.

~~~
typpo
Thanks for the feedback. The chrome/firefox pages have user reviews but there
aren't many of them.

I was sensitive to performance when I wrote it - in most cases detection rules
are single selectors. It won't run anything on sites not in the db. No library
dependencies.

There's a phantomjs test suite that flags false positives and negatives. Of
course, I can't personally compile a list of every site with sponsored
content, so if it's not on the list the addon won't display anything.

If you're interested, the code is open source at [http://github.com/typpo/ad-
detector](http://github.com/typpo/ad-detector).

Hard for me to say whether it can spot ads that you can't. Many people think
they aren't susceptible to ads like these, and I'm one of them, but I built
this for peace of mind. Sponsored content can be easy to miss. My favorite
examples are this Yahoo news article on climate change (written by an oil
company), and a Newsweek article on personal injury lawyers:

[1] [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-cooling-real-
inconveni...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-cooling-real-inconvenient-
truth-140500879.html) [2] [http://www.newsweek.com/10-best-personal-injury-
attorneys](http://www.newsweek.com/10-best-personal-injury-attorneys)

------
hackuser
Here is why the integrity of journalism is so important:

In my experience, most people form opinions by effectively shopping among the
various narratives offered by the many forms of media, including those
described in the article, and picking the one they like most -- as if they
were shopping for a sweater to wear. Then they base their opinion on the
chosen narrative, but of course once the questions are framed and facts
established, their 'opinion' is preordained.

That is no accident. The narratives often are created by interests whose goal
is to manipulate public opinion, and their stories are repeated widely,
wittingly by their agents and unwittingly by everyone else. This isn't
conspiracy theory; you can read plenty of legitimate research where this
process is openly described; even the vocabulary you probably use to discuss
public issues often is carefully constructed by someone. Public opinion can be
manipulated to vary widely from the facts (consider climate change, Saddam
Hussein's connection to 9/11, etc. etc.) and also it is an extremely valuable
asset. Manipulating it can change history, and create and destroy political
and personal fortunes -- and nations, as well as start/end wars, kill/save
hundreds of millions of people, and make/lose trillions of dollars
('regulation is choking the experts on Wall Street'). So of course there are
many, many people who will manipulate it. There is a game being played and
most people don't know it is happening, much less that they are its objects.

How does this happen? I think many people are swayed by the big lies -- they
can't believe so much is so deceitful. Also, in my experience the best
educated, smartest people I know are often the most easily led; perhaps they
are hamstrung by their intellectual confidence, because I often hear them
repeating one side or another's talking points and underlying propaganda.
Finally, it's hard to educate anyone on this issue; there is no nice way to
say, 'you've been fooled' and 'most of what you say is someone else's
propaganda'.

But how does it happen? It's not true that society can rely on citizens to
sort truth from falsehood; the reality is that people are easily led. It is up
to the elites in our society, including journalists, to ensure they are
getting something closer to the truth. I doubt there is a solution for corrupt
elites.

~~~
narrator
If you come up with a different understanding from the mainstream it will take
an hour of your time to explain it to the average person, if and only if they
are extremely open minded, and then they will forget it.

The mainstream media gets to talk to hundreds of millions for a couple of
hours every week. At least it's a bit better now that there's the internet.

~~~
VLM
"The mainstream media gets to talk to hundreds of millions for a couple of
hours every week."

Its known that the numbers are single digit millions, for individual shows.

[http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/category/ratings/top-
news/e...](http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/category/ratings/top-news/evening-
news/)

Probably double digit millions if you add it all together. There is likely a
lot of overlap. "News junkies" watching ten newscasts equals ten views, but
doesn't equal ten different viewers.

Maybe triple digits if you add the entire world together across all languages
and cultures. But that might be pushing it.

The primary use of the news is signalling positions to the other side. Nobody
is supposed to learn anything from it, just signal to other groups.

------
bostik
The single most depressing quote from the article, understandably lifted even
on the page itself:

> _" For every working journalist in America there, are now 4.6 PR people, up
> from 3.2 a decade ago"_

We can respin (pun intended) that in slightly different way: _journalists in
US are outnumbered by spin doctors more than 4 to 1_. That's a sad figure for
anyone who cares about finding out the truth.

~~~
evgen
Not sure what makes me more sad, the idea that you think journalists are in
some way involved in the task of "finding out the truth" or that you are
surprised by the ratios. Journalism has been on its death bed for at least a
decade with the number of people working in that field dropping every year,
while marketing and advertising have continued to grow in a world where the
standard user expectation is to not pay for online content and where they
instead expect to be surrounded by advertising as the price of admission.

~~~
bostik
It is subtler than that, but I am surprised by the ratios.

Journalists do not themselves uncover truths. They uncover material and
details that can point to a truth. And the core of the problem is that
journalism is _slow_. In the time it takes to fact-check an investigative
article, the spinmeisters have had ample time to do what they do best. Namely,
set up smoke and mirrors.

The power asymmetry is painful, and I have no doubt about this being even a
recent thing. There's a quote attributed to Mark Twain on the subject: _“A lie
can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its
shoes.”_

------
narrator
Reminds me of this Conan O'Brein piece.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA#t=26](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA#t=26)

Basically, 100s of local newscasts are all using the exact same script, even
on trivial human interest stories where they could improvise.

------
aaronbrethorst
In case you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend taking the next 11 minutes
to watch John Oliver talk about native advertising:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc)

------
WalterBright
I wonder when the golden age of unbiased news reporting was. I'm 55 and my
whole life everyone complained about the biased media.

Heck, even the reporting on the Boston Massacre is a classic of bias.

~~~
hackuser
>I wonder when the golden age of unbiased news reporting was. I'm 55 and my
whole life everyone complained about the biased media.

Agreed; people naturally exaggerate the good old days and forget how
advertisers and other interests often owned [EDIT: figuratively and literally]
many media outlets. Maybe it's better that those powers publish their own
stories; at least they generally own up to it rather than hiding behind
journalists for legitimacy.

But I also disagree strongly: It's a matter of degree, of course. No
journalism ever was written, edited and published by wise saints, but some is
much better than others. There is Fox News and there is the Financial Times;
neither is purely bad or good, but one is far better than the other. The
problems discussed in the article make journalism significantly less valuable
and reliable, and there is no good substitute for it. The public simply will
lack good information and will believe more false information.

~~~
phaemon
> There is Fox News and there is the Financial Times; neither is purely bad or
> good, but one is far better than the other.

I used to believe so too. And I also believed that the BBC was far better than
either, because they may have failed to be unbiased, but they definitely made
a goodwill effort towards it.

That's what I used to believe until the recent Scottish referendum, when I
started observing the actual behaviour of the media closely. And then you
start to see that there is no difference. The BBC were just as nasty,
ignorant, lying amoral shits as Fox news generally are.

I would look at the Google News feed and watch as the Daily Mail and the BBC
and the Financial Times would compete to update the same lying crap to
basically spam the newsfeed so that they would always be the top story. Truth
be damned.

I love the world, and I love most people because people are generally great
and mostly do the right thing, but you are not cynical enough.

~~~
duckmysick
Your post is no better than the reports from the flawed media; it's full of
name calling and presents zero facts backed by any evidence.

It's not like we can approach the Scottish independence as a physics
experiment: run it in a controlled environment, adjust for different
variables, and expect the results to be replicated in another laboratory. So
in this case I'm going to be skeptical of anyone who claims there's a "truth"
that I can choose and sleep soundly at night knowing I made the right choice.
It's too complex of an issue - socially, politically, and economically.

I'm cynical enough to suspect you're not unbiased either and that you have a
self-interest in one side of the Scottish independence discussion.

Too bad for both of us that cynicism have never solved any problem.

------
mark_l_watson
Wow. Scary trend in corporate control of the local news.

I have been concerned for a long time about corporate control of the few large
news outlets like MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc. I think that they all filter the news
and enforce a slanted version of the news not in the public interest. There
are some organizations like Democracy Now that do a much better job.

~~~
krakensden
> Scary trend in corporate control of the local news.

Local news has been in a death spiral since the early 1990s, and no longer
exists in most places that aren't big enough to have skyscrapers. I think
there's a strong case that this is better than nothing, and that the honesty
of its patronage limits the damage (and will encourage competition).

This is not theoretical to me. I grew up in the area, and do not feel that
McClatchy (who basically has a monopoly) has managed its East Bay mastheads in
an effective or useful manner.

~~~
narrator
There used to be good independent radio in the early 90s too but it all got
bought up by clear channel. I used to listen to the radio but the music
stopped changing in the early 90s after grunge came out.

~~~
Varcht
For music I like to think that Gen X nailed it. My 18 year old bought a record
player and collects 80's and 90's records while keeping up with the new stuff,
but maybe it's just the man keeping her down.

------
ozmbie
As Marshall Mcluhan said: The medium is the message.

When television came to dominate the media landscape in the 60s, it also
redefined news and media. Now social media and the internet is starting to do
the same, in its own way. Inherent properties and biases of this new medium
are distorting the types of content that fit in it.

------
Spooky23
Personally, I think this is a good thing, because the more blatant aspect of
the propaganda coming out of these outlets will inspire and frighten the
people on the other side -- inspiring competitive voices.

We've operated in a world where influence is more subtle and it was easy to
pretend that the news was unbiased. It wasn't, especially at the local level.
The reporting wasn't propaganda, but the editorial board directs the reporters
-- and the juiciest news is always the stuff that isn't in the paper, or is
buried in section Z somewhere.

One of my relatives was a cabinet-level official in a mid-sized city in the
80s and 90s, when a hotshot reporter drove a Porsche. Unless it was a personal
scandal affecting the Mayor, or people were marching in the streets, my
relative could either make a phone call or have his boss make a phone call and
kill/neuter a story.

If you look at news in the American Revolutionary era through the Civil War,
it was big mess of different news outlets with very well defined biases. It's
different than the late 20th century model of Woodward and Bernstein in the
paper and a fatherly figure with good hair on TV, but it worked and will work
again.

~~~
lotharbot
> _" the editorial board directs the reporters"_

... and both the editorial board and reporters select _how_ to cover the news.

Some of my relatives were active on a significant political issue in the 80s
and 90s, holding state-level positions in a well-known organization. As a
teen, I would occasionally attend rallies, protests, etc. (sometimes with
counter-rallies/protests across the street) and watch from a distance, and
then I'd watch the news coverage that evening. The camera always seemed to
fall on awkwardly dressed senior citizens from our side, ignoring our speakers
who were often young professional women who were excellent public speakers,
and ignoring the large and diverse crowd. And the camera never showed the guys
on the other side making threatening remarks (though I know they got those
remarks on film); they'd instead seek comment from a lawyer in their office to
give a calm presentation of that side. So even though they covered the event,
the coverage gave the impression that one side was professional and well-
spoken while the other was out of touch and weird, which was exactly the
opposite of the impression I got from being there.

~~~
zby
I was once filmed for a documentary (on migrant workers) made for BBC and I
was quoted saying something like "This newspaper used to be full of job ads"
\- they cut off the ending of my sentence: "now it is all in the internet".
Plus starting the interview with my daughter crying - while in fact she was
mostly quiet during the 3 hours filming - they cut the moment that she did cry
and put it at the start of the interview to set up the emotional tone.

I understand that they did this to make a 'story' out of it, it was not really
malicious - but I was surprised to see such a blatant manipulation done in a
BBC documentary.

~~~
touristtam
after the BBC coverage of the Scottish Independence referendum, I am not
surprised anymore. Sad to say from a public service...

------
alecco
Bernays would be jealous.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)

[http://vimeo.com/85948693](http://vimeo.com/85948693) The Century of the Self
- Part 1

------
iuguy
This is a serious issue in the UK, particularly where local governments use
taxpayer money to put free 'newspapers' in everyone's doors. It's actually
reached a point where the national government has had to look into what one MP
has called, "propaganda masquerading as independent newspapers"[1]

[1] - [http://www.editorsweblog.org/2010/01/21/uk-government-to-
inv...](http://www.editorsweblog.org/2010/01/21/uk-government-to-investigate-
local-council-papers)

------
jonifico
This issue comes from the increasingly shameless attitude from corporations
toward what is, plain and simple, getting money. Now there are news about
multibillion dollar businesses coming up, start-ups that become successful,
etc, etc. Big companies are realizing this and are starting to take action.
Ugly action.

------
VLM
There is another oddity about the article

"emerge in the age of hyper-local digital news brands such as Patch"

Patch is closing down and firing people. Ours closed. It does not appear to be
a survivable business model, although they gave it a good try and it was
interesting reading while it lasted.

------
zobzu
I'm not sure how that's really new tho. Its stronger than ever before if
anything, but ive seen non-sponsored news and news that were factual since i
dont know.

------
dleibovic
_Cardiff University researchers estimated in 2006 that 41 per cent of UK press
articles were driven by PR, a phenomenon known as “churnalism”._

Wow.

------
andyzweb
related pg essay:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

------
transfire
Never believe anything.

------
tudorconstantin
What's the difference between corporate influence and political influence
regarding news? Politicians influence the news from their beginning, the only
difference being that they pay reporters and media outlets with tax money.
Given the small revenues that a news article generates, I fully understand the
temptation to write for a check. Hey, at least the journalist doesnt have to
blackmail any company/individual with disclosures they want to remain secret.

~~~
msrpotus
Not sure where you're from but the US government doesn't fund any news
organizations in the US. In developed countries with taxpayer-funded news
(like the BBC), there are several layers in between the funding and reporters
to protect their independence.

------
asaramis
I found this article to embody every problem with the attitude of journalists
from traditional media institutions. The author effectively is lamenting his
loss of role as the gatekeeper of all information. Apparently, all journalism
was 'pure' and devoid of any conflicts of interest and the only way to receive
the 'truth' for a reader.

You can see this near arrogance flow through much of the anecdotes. "Ugh, more
and more PR people trying to get my attention all the time. It's sooo
annoying." "Ugh, PR girls are even trying to sleep with me, but you can't
compromise my editorial integrity." It's perfectly represents the entitlement
of the gatekeeper role that must've been built into that last generation of
journalists.

Sorry for the mild rant but sites like Hacker News and Reddit have shown that
readers are plenty smart, and capable of sifting through the bullshit, whether
produced by a corporation, a newspaper, or an individual. When news media held
a monopoly on distribution and there were few sources of info, I understand
the danger of a corporation holding the sole lifeline of info. That's no
longer the case.

~~~
foobarqux
> Sorry for the mild rant but sites like Hacker News and Reddit have shown
> that readers are plenty smart, and capable of sifting through the bullshit

It's not that they are not capable or smart, it's that they don't bother fact
checking every single story or seek out opposing analysis or interpretation,
especially for things like US foreign policy.

~~~
asaramis
Main difference is stories aren't fact-checked before discussing. In the end
the right information ends up disseminated probably as often as a standard
news story, it's just the 'sausage is made' in the public eye vs. in a closed
newsroom the public has no visibility to.

