Slashdot Mirror
Contributors To Prominent Publications Have Taken Payments in Exchange For Positive Coverage (theoutline.com)
Jon Christian, reporting for The Outline: Interviews with more than two dozen marketers, journalists, and others familiar with similar pay-for-play offers revealed a dubious corner of online publishing in which publicists blur traditional lines between advertising and public relations, quietly pay off journalists to promote their clients in articles that make no mention of the financial arrangement. People involved with the payoffs are extremely reluctant to discuss them, but four contributing writers to prominent publications including Mashable, Business Insider, and Entrepreneur told me they have personally accepted payments in exchange for weaving promotional references to brands into their work on those sites. Two of the writers acknowledged they have taken part in the scheme for years, on behalf of many brands. One of them, a contributor to Fast Company and other outlets who asked not to be identified by name, described how he had inserted references to a well-known startup that offers email marketing software into multiple online articles, in Fast Company and elsewhere, on behalf of a marketing agency he declined to name.
I know a shrewd negotiator when I see one.
It drives me nuts that bloggers and small time accounts are required by the FCC to tag and make obvious their posts that include sponsored content, but the major media outlets have blatant advertising all over the place that isn't disclosed. If it's an ad, they need to start putting disclaimers on it. Any compensation be it free product or paid placement/reviews needs to be stated before and after the ad.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
... is cheaper than advertising.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Forbes just fired its science writer for having Monsanto ghost-write his pro-GMO articles for him. The scumbag is also a "researcher" at Stanford who has published scientific articles about how safe GMOs are.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Are the words "bribe" and "corrupted" still in modern dictionaries?
#DeleteFacebook
gambling etc
ALMOST ALL PUBLICATIONS will take a well-crafted PR statement, make a few changes and publish it as a story.
FTFY. (Having spent years on both sides of the game.)
"There are lies, damned lies, and websites!"
I am shocked and appalled that these quality publications would behave this way. That is Uber irresponsible. Perhaps Facebook and Google can use their groundbreaking AI technologies to detect this kind of thing.
Shocked, I tell you, that this would happen in the golden age of internet freedom!
This is what GamerGate was *supposed* to be instead of a bunch of ignorant manbabies getting all butthurt because designers and publishers dared add stuff like diversity and positive female character portrayal to games.
a solid public education system. I've long since learned to spot this stuff. But I _learned_ that. It took years and several hard working and very good teachers. You're always going to have this kind of stuff. Every couple of years a few of the more obvious ones get caught. What you need is a system that teaches people to catch it and respond accordingly. In other words, teaches critical thinking skills. Yes, they can be taught. If it doesn't come naturally it's hard to teach and takes years, but it can be done. And even if you're somebody who just 'gets it' naturally it's worth it to you to pay for the ones who it goes whooshing over their heads to get it to. You don't want an electorate that's easily manipulated.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
From the other side of this, as a startup founder, I get solicited weekly by media platforms interested in being paid to write a story or shoot a video focused on my company. Previously, I didn't see this as nefarious, but I am cheap, and generally waited until someone would write about us for free. I do pay a service to distribute press releases, which seems to be a very normal thing to do.
The big exception in pay-for-publication space for me is scientific publication. I am a scientist, my company does research as part of its business and publishes that research in the same way a university would. Every time I send an article (that I've written) to a scientific journal, I pay the journal a few thousand dollars to publish it, preferably open-access. This is simply the way that market works. The peer reviewed journal system, for all it's problems, is widely seen as more authoritative than the news media, despite requiring payment for review, editing, and formatting.
My point is simply that there are certain publishing routes that require you pay, and some that encourage payment for access, and there's no ethical problem there. It's hard, when you're not a journalist, to understand the difference between these paid media platforms and the media platforms that get offended when you ask how much the fee is.
If you think this practice is bad in "journalism', you really don't want to how enterprise researchers like Gartner work...
Name these bastards so we never have to read their crap again.
"People involved with the payoffs are extremely reluctant to discuss them"
Yeah, because its illegal. Maybe not "go to jail" illegal, but individual reporters generally can't afford the fines that the FTC can levy. Plus, you know, that whole "professional integrity" thing people used to harp about. Though I hear that's rather swiftly going the way of the Dodo. (that's not a political jibe at any current officeholders, the Dodo is a bird that went extinct)
Propaganda reads like propaganda, no matter how much money is pissed into making it read like not propaganda.
Here's a hint: people aren't as stupid as you think they are. They can generally tell when you're reporting as truth something they see with their own eyes is false, and vice-versa. That's why journalism gets no respect these days. Everything reads like propaganda and the only people who think it doesn't are the bubble-dwellers in NY, SF, and DC who write it and hand out almost exclusively with other people who write it. It would just be impolite to pull out a sharp object in that sort of company.
When there's big money involved, the law is accomodating. Look at the spying epidemic. If it was your neighbor spying on you, tracking your whereabouts, keeping detailed recordings of who you associate with and when, it would be grounds for being charged with stalking or harrassment. But when big business does it, it's just business as usual. The difference isn't in what they're doing. The difference is in how much money is at stake.
The sky confirmed to be blue. More at 11...
I know the whole "don't feed the trolls" but seriously will you just go away. I'm sure cdriemer is thrilled to have his very own stalker and all, but we don't need to here about your obsession constantly.
And yes, you're far more creepy than he is.
Make America Greedy Again.
You know, the other day I was sitting in my La-Z-Boy recliner enjoying the lumbar heater while surfing the net on my high-performance MSI laptop. Just as I was cracking open a fresh Coke and salivating at the crisp 'fizzle' sound, I realized how much of the media I consume is filled with product placement.
Other than "Everything Trump Says"
This is nothing but product placement by another name. We laugh at Microsoft when we see them do it on TV shows. This is no different. People just have to learn to ignore such obvious attempts when they see them.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I really can't reconcile in my head how every single Web reviewer sings such high praises for those iPhone copies that now dominate Android makers, when I see lots of people asking for features instead of electronic fashion jewelry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
GamerGate was a preview into the macrocosm of unethical journalism (not that it was ever a secret).
So I guess this means you're all misogynists for discussing this now too.
Enjoy.
I'm not sure there is a technical/bureaucratic fix for it. I suspect that if the content confirms the biases that the audience has and likes, they will accept it as true no matter how many markings or red flags you put on it. Conversely, if it challenges what they want to believe, they'll ignore it.
This is only true up to a point. There is LOTS of content in articles that is not obviously biased toward something the reader feels strongly about. Read a neutral article about something an oil company cares about, for example, and you often will find talking points that a firm managed to get into the article without attribution of any kind. The difference between "oil company X says Y, so not Z..."... and "there is some criticism of Z, but Y" is night and day and makes a massive difference in what people believe.
This used to be known as 'payolla', feel free to research it. It's sadly nothing new. I would extend it to *everything* - online reviews, social media, you name it. There are very few honest presentations of opinion out there ( so when you encounter them, support them!) - money talks first, then people.
Worse than Hostsboy himself.
If you believe that journalists aren't ethical then clearly you hate women.
Do we ever see Slashvertising on this website?
They simply put are ridiculous. Interesting to note that 90% of all Journalism graduates are female. Interesting.
Does this qualify the contributors as a public relations firm?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Warning! Creimer has submitted a story through his Anonymous Cashews sockpuppet. Please go an mod it down!! He will to try and save this sock's karma instead of just making a new account
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Companies are all starting to re-evaluate the value of online advertising and especially youtube. Much of it has to do with video spammers like yourself.
It will be an awfully short tail when youtube decides your video has to have sustained traffic in order to get any cut of money. People did just fine uploading niche and random shit to youtube before people started grinding for click money. It's quite arguable that such content has become lower quality since then even.
It may have encourage people to push a lot of content onto the network that wouldn't be there but everyone's mildly interesting back-catalog of shit is already up there, the new content is all "Jerrod iz crazyl lol" it's some little kid screaming jibberish at the camera. Next up "This is the sidewalk outside my house.. it's over 60 years old. yep" Next up; "Everywhere I go there are secret agents following me.. this one looks like a mailman"
I mean look how much people have monetized videos for toddlers. People who have almost no buying power. (No they don't see things on youtube ads and get their parents to buy it)
Not only that but every day you'll be competing with more and more shovel content. Meaning your pool of clicks will get smaller and smaller.
You're just a dumb idiot chris.
Don't forget everyone!! Downvoting chris's submissions is just the start! Make sure you vote up some other good submissions from the firehose. We need to teach chris about competition!