Purposeful Confusion Over Sponsored Content: A Mainstream Media Conspiracy

[TomCADem]

One troubling trend that has grown in the past few years is the purposeful confusion between content generated by a media outlet and sponsored content. Indeed, as this story in the Washington Post illustrates, even journalists can be confused regarding what is a paid ad or political propaganda versus an actual story or editorial by the media outlet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/25/sponsored-content-confusion-politifact-r-i-raps-buzzfeed-for-toothpaste-thing/

It’s a challenge of which fact-checking trainees dream. On July 14, BuzzFeed published a list — 11 Awesome Facts You Never Knew About Rhode Island — that included one hilarious assertion: “In Providence, R.I., it’s illegal to sell toothpaste and a toothbrush to the same customer on a Sunday.”

PolitiFact Rhode Island went to town. It checked Providence ordinances. It checked with a city archivist. It checked state law. It checked with BuzzFeed for its source. All of that checking turned up no evidence that such a restriction exists. A BuzzFeed spokesperson defended the contention, noting that, “It seems like it’s a commonly referenced piece of information.” A bogus one at that, concluded PolitiFact Rhode Island, which gave BuzzFeed a rating of “pants on fire” for the toothpaste-toothbrush contention.

Okay, so? What’s the big deal here?

That PolitiFact Rhode Island termed the list a “feature,” which suggests that it considered the item part of BuzzFeed’s news presentation. In fact, it’s part of BuzzFeed’s formidable sponsored-content offensive. The site confirms that no editorial staffers were involved in producing the item.

Signage notwithstanding, the folks at PolitiFact Rhode Island didn’t consider what sort of silo housed the content. Timothy Murphy, an assistant managing editor at the Providence Journal and editor of PolitiFact Rhode Island, told the Erik Wemple Blog that the sponsored nature of the list didn’t come up in the editing process. “It was brought to our attention by a reader who was just curious and amused by it, and it was published on their Web site,” says Murphy. “It’s not clear to me whether it’s sponsored content or what it is.”

Many liberals have hailed the internet as a possible equalizer against the increasing consolidation of media outlets and the growth of media monopolies. However, many internet outlets, including DU if you were to notice some of the sponsored content that occasionally shows up on this page, have begun to rely on revenue from sponsored content providers, who purposefully confuse their paid advertising and propaganda with native content, thus allowing the advertiser to trade on the good will of the media outlet. As this story notes, the growth of this trend has been coupled with growing confusion between paid versus native content.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/11/the-texas-tribune-is-getting-into-sponsored-content-for-a-new-online-opinion-section/

As an exercise in sponsored content, what that means is the Tribune might see submissions from organizations like the Beer Alliance of Texas, AT&T, or Texans for Education Reform. But the goal is to round out the site with unpaid submissions from readers, officials, and others, Ramshaw said, and they’ve already reached out to 200 experts and other thinkers around the state to ask if they would be interested in contributing. There’s an audience of people who want to be involved with the Tribune, or use the Tribune as venue for ideas, she said. The site’s events business is one example of that, Ramshaw said. “People want to engage in person and online. They want a bigger platform and forum to do it,” she said. (Today is the first day of the Trib’s fifth year.)

The Tribune isn’t the only news organization working on combining op-ed DNA and advertising dollars; for instance, this summer, The Washington Post announced its “Sponsored Views” program. But Sponsored Views are limited to 600 characters and are attached to editorials from the paper. In format, they’re closer to an ad, or a privileged online comment.

As sponsored content has continued its spread across the media landscape, lots of companies are trying to adopt their own versions of the concept. That’s led to no small amount of confusion over labeling, as “sponsored content,” “branded content,” and “native advertising” blur together in some people’s minds. But no matter the label, the one seeming constant among organizations wading into sponsored content is fear over blurring the line between journalism and advertising.

“My gut reaction was: ‘Sponsored content? No. Of course not,’” Ramshaw said. “I think a lot of journalists have that response.”