Our newspaper reporters want funding to do an in-depth investigative report about corruption in the public schools, but we have no money to fund it. Our advertising department has said it can generate the money if we allow it to sell advertorials for products and businesses in the paper that look like legitimate articles but are actually paid advertising. Should we allow the advertising department to sell advertorials so we can pursue the corruption lead?
REPLY TO THIS POST so others can see your comments in this same space. Please do not create your own separate post.
If I worked with the newspaper an/or the advertising department I would say that allowing advertisements to generate the money is the best option because it lets the advertising team get advertisements out as well as the newspaper being able to do their in-depth investigation. I think that would be a good article for the newspaper to put out so it would be worth it although as a reader of the newspaper. I would not like that too much. When I read “advertorials for products and businesses that look like legitimate articles but are actually paid advertising†that reminds me of really good click bait that makes you want to watch the video or read the article and at the end or beginning it talks about something completely different. Companies and people do this because they believe if you have taken the time to read the whole article or watch the video you are more likely to be invested and that results in you buying their product which I don’t like because it seems like they are tricking the consumer even though this tactic is legitimate.
If we allow the advertising department to run advertorials, will this reduce the level of trust and respect readers have for our paper? If so, it seems somewhat counterintuitive to make money by doing something that would make our paper less reputable just to run an expensive hard-news story. If we run advertorials, I believe doing so will open the opportunity for the story to be met with heightened skepticism and scrutiny. However, truth is truth and facts are facts. If the school district is corrupt and what we report is true, running such a story would likely boost our reputation. The question is are we willing to risk the potential of damaging how the public views our paper for the chance to make-it-big? I say, find a cheaper way to uncover the corruption in our schools without sacrificing our identity.
These are all good points! I agree that is would be counter-intuitive if letting the advertorials go though would lose trust from the readers. I also think that there would be many other options to get the money to fund the investigation so they should try another path and have this as their last option because it is risky. When people start talking about company or news station or even magazine company that doesn’t tell the whole truth, if that information gets our it will destroy the reputation of the company and it is hard to fix that.
The main thing we want to ensure is our integrity. We need to maintain our transparency and honesty. This will uphold the public’s trust and loyalty in us. With that being said I have a few questions; are they advertorials disguised so as to hide that they are paid advertising? Can readers reliably guess that they are advertisements? If it’s the latter, there is nothing wrong with using advertisements to make money, especially for this cause. If it’s the former, the audience will feel scammed and that we think they are stupid; and we need to operate on the assumption that the audience WOULD find out. The reason being, competitors will use any edge they can (such as this), and because we need to make decisions based on how the public would react to our decisions if they knew. This helps to keep us moral, ethical, and honest.
They do need to assume the media and audience would find out because it always happens, especially with the news being so public of course. I think being ethical and honest is most important here and if they were going to go through letting the paid advertisements happen, I think they should tell people about it because not only would they get their funding they on;t lose trust in people and in fact would gain trust.
I think we can all agree that it would be ok to sell standard ads to fund our projects. However, these advertorials which look like “legitimate articles” but are actually just ads, may be harmful to us in the end. We want to build our readers’ trust and we can’t do that when we are putting misleading things in our paper. We should find alternative ways to fund our story on corruption without falling into questionable practices ourselves, even if it’s the norm in our industry.
I agree, once the trust is gone, the newspaper would be done. After all, why get the news from a source that you don’t believe is honest? You can’t trust if what you are reading is factual and unbiased then.
I think having the newspaper reporters write the article about corruption is a great idea. I can agree with the advertising department wanting to raise money to help with the investigation. However, I can not agree with using deception to gain money when they are trying to expose corruption in the first place. They are, in a sense, corrupt themselves. By lying to the public, they are doing the same thing as they are investigating. I think that they should find a different way to raise money. Perhaps sell advertising the honest way and tell people why they need to sell advertising. Trust, once lost, is a hard thing to gain back.
This is an abuse of the freedom of the press. These kinds of deceitful acts are, speculatively, what has caused news media to feel it can say and do whatever it feels like. Since when did news reporting become about a hidden agenda? Using a newspaper to article to trick people into believing a product is something that it is not, is not only irresponsible, it is just wrong. I can not count the times in my early internet days oi would read an article that sounded like a legitimate piece of information only to scroll to the bottom of the page and see that it was just an advertisement for something and the entire story was fabricated to try to sell something. I think the investigative journalists would be going against their laurels by stooping to allocating funding in this way. It is more important to stay true to yourself than it is to take the easy way out by jeopardizing what you believe in and do for a living.
I’m not sure this advertising is misrepresenting the product, pretending it is something or has uses that it does not and I certainly agree that news shouldn’t be fabricated to sell it. However matching a product to relevant and accurate news reporting could be an extra step that today’s consumers demand. I believe it is worth attempting. I do agree that transparency is essential.
When you said, “.. entire story fabricated to try to sell something” it reminded me of YouTubers that I won’t watch now because they have a history of claiming a makeup product is absolutely phenomenal, when it’s not. Because they are being paid to advertise the product, and lie about the quality, I cannot trust their reviews and recommendations. There are also YouTubers who have been found to link products in their description, but hide that it’s an affiliate link, and when they were found out, it really damaged them and their reputation.
This situation with the newspaper would be just like that.
I feel that allowing this to happen would comprise the integrity of the paper. It may provide the temporary funding for this particular issue, but at what cost? It is dishonest and misleading. If the readers were to find out about the paper selling advertorials, it would call in to question the content of the rest of the articles and reports. At that point, there would be no reason to look into corruption in public schools because the newspaper is no longer a credible source.
JrKeller, I agree that this action is a compromise on the companies honesty and the integrity of the paper. This action would cause the public to lose faith in the paper and the company would lose them as customers. This would cause the company to fail as a business and people to lose jobs due to this dishonest action.
I say go for it. If you have a good lead on the corruption in the school and it needs to be exposed, but need the money, then I say sell the advertorials. There are plenty of magazines that I have read that do this. Some are on the annoying side, but some of the ads can be interesting. If someone doesn’t want to read them, they can just skip over the advertorial. If it generates money for the newspaper, so the reporters are able to expose corrupt happenings, then so be it. A reader can tell it is an advertisement and it isn’t hurting anyone. It can be annoying, but it isn’t a detrimental thing.
Aubrey,
I agree with your stance on the matter 100% and think that ultimately, this sort of business isn’t all about integrity, but about the story and how the reporters will come to find it. No great story was ever covered by a reporter who was afraid to step on peoples toes and do whatever it took to ensure the success of their piece. Nice post.
I think that everything would depend on which side I was on. In regards to the newspaper using article space as advertisement in order to conduct an investigation on the corruption within the public school system, my emotional tie to the subject would depend if I were on the reader side of the newspaper, or if I were apart of the investigative processes. If I worked for the newspaper, then I would be okay with them using advertisements to peruse the investigation story. However, if I were the one purchasing the newspaper for reading purposes, I would think otherwise. Tricking the consumer into buying the product that is laden with false articles in order to financially provide the newspaper in the first place is all a part of the business. However, once it happens, then it may turn away your loyal customers that purchase the newspapers in the first place. They may seek alternate sources of gaining information to avoid the advertisements. Overall, I think that there are both positives and negatives to allowing the advertising department sell advertorials that that they could pursue a corruption lead.
I agree that there is an emotional side to both, which could sway judgment. However, journalism is to be unbiased and to do so, emotions have to be taken out of things. It is important to expose the corruption within the public school system, but to do so at the cost of the reputation and trust of the newspaper would damage that article- and all articles that followed. The mistrust of readers could mean they don’t even trust if the article about the corruption is true.
This whole idea sounds like fraudulent behavior on the advertisement side of the newspaper because the viewers are being tricked into reading something that is not a “legit article.” On the reporters stand point, this would be a great way to gain money but this way of fundraising seems sketchy. If any consistent viewers were at a risk to be lost during this period of fake articles, it would not be smart for the newspaper company whatsoever. Jeopardizing the newspaper’s reputation for some story seems too risky and not beneficial for the long-term. If they are producing advertorials in their papers, it should be obvious what kind of article or information the viewers are being fed.
I agree with you that is information is hidden, this would be sketchy behavior. Ads should not be passed off as “news”. However, I see no issue with upgrading advertising to include human interest, research, or whatever information the audience demands to “vote with their time and participation”. Today’s world is far more demanding as far as “tell me why I should care” and linking ads with their interests and current trends could be common sense. I could be way off though so if that endeavor is undertaken, it should be evaluated for increased income.
I definitely agree with this. Viewers want reliable sources and “real” articles. Allowing advertisements to take part in this would damage the newspaper’s reliability.
Personally, I avoid reading mainstream media because it has stooped so low in producing news that I can’t believe it anymore. Our newspaper shouldn’t become like that. Accepting money like this would lead us down a dangerous path.
This just sounds like an add that your pop up blocker did not catch. It would make readers look for another paper if we bombard them with more ads then cool interesting facts. If we need money start looking for interested benefactors go to the higher ups of the school look in the PTA if there is a story that would be my guess where to start as well. You should start small though until you have something that is more concrete to not waste resources.
I would have to agree with the majority here, and say that this would be severely detirmental to our integrity and honesty. Running with the advertorials and following the lead could be counterproductive for us, the readers will probably be more likely to not believe our story even with a great lead, if we try to deceive them with advertisements.
I think it can be a good idea to allow the advertising department to sell advertorials so they can peruse the corruption lead. However, I think that they should be informative and interesting because some can be boring. In the end, if someone does not want to read the advertorial, they can skip over them and continue on with what they were reading. This would be great for the reporters to increase money but could be frustrating to the buyers. However, in the end, the advertorials are not hurting anyone, it may be annoying, but there is no harm being done.
I am not 100% against allowing advertorials that are informative as well as promoting products however I do not believe it should be linked to investigating corruption and/or fraud. Firstly, because it is important to keep clear ethical lines where decisions stand alone and are not linked with other motivation. Otherwise it becomes easy to justify “means” for a “desired end”.
As stand alone ventures, if the paper needs to adjust advertising to generate enough income to continue investigating and reporting, advertorials are a good idea. I think it will be important to maintain transparency and not try to “trick” readership into participating but today’s audience does expect innovative advertising. Clearly marking these articles as “sponsored” or in some way as revenue generating allows the readers to be informed appropriately. The population will answer the question of whether or not this is a good move.
Investigating corruption and reporting accurately is also an important and worthy job. It is great that the newspaper feels a duty to increase profit to support that type of journalism.
I think that this is a tough one. On one hand, if we allow the advertising department to sell advertorials so we can pursue the corruption in public schools, we are able to get the truth out and let the public know what is really going on within the schools. On the other hand, if we sell advertorials to generate money to fund the report about the corruption and we are making these products and businesses “look like legitimate articles†and our readers find out it was just paid advertising, then we risk the possibility of losing their business. Are there any options for us to gain the money to fund it? If not and this is the only option, then I say that we should allow the advertising department to sell advertorials. I would just make sure that the articles that we produce for the products and businesses aren’t misleading and that the majority of the article actually contains good content.
I think the most important aspect of any news entity is integrity. The reputation of the newspaper is at stake and that is a critical key to its success. If we lose the trust of our readers our newspaper is worthless. I would say to stay away from advertorials because they could be perceived as deceitful to the reader. I personally do not care for advertorials. They are all over the internet. You read them and think this is just an informative article and somewhere along the way you realize they are just trying to sell you something. It wouldn’t be so bad if you knew the information in the advertorial was actually true but it always comes across as an unreputable commercial. I would never make a decision based on something I have read in an advertorial, I don’t trust the information. I would think going with standard advertising would be a better route to take in this case.
I would pursue advertorials as a last resort. Covering stories of corruption are always big news and will draw a lot of attention to our newspaper but creating distrust in our readers through advertorials would be unwise. For instance, would it be cost effective to print an extra page to space ads out more frequently for a short time? I believe there are other alternatives to gain the necessary funding.
I think it would be good to investigate the corruption that is going on in the public schools, but we also have to consider the costs and ramifications of disguising paid advertising as articles. I think the first step we could do is informing authorities above the schools to see if they would have an interest in pursuing such stories, before taking the initiative to do it ourselves if we really cannot afford it and this was our only option to be able to. Long term, people may turn away from the newspaper because of integrity lost over this dilemma. It is certainly something to consider but I think considering all options first would be the priority.
I don’t think we should allow the advertising department to sell advertorials so we can pursue the corruption lead. I think by doing so it could really compromise the integrity of our newspaper, potentially leading us to lose some of our readers and subscribers. Covering a topic like corruption in public schools seems like a great story, that could really have an impact. But to sell out advertorials just feels seedy, and almost corrupt in its own sense. It feels totally dishonest and is a disrespect to our readers. I think we should really find an alternative way to raise the money to investigate this story, even if it means delaying it. For example, we could sell general ad space to these companies and products without trying to deceive our reader. If we are impatient, and take the money now and run the advertorials, then when we are able to afford to pursue the corruption story we have to wonder if our readers will still take our publication seriously. To me, it is just not worth it to stoop to that level, and deceive our readers.
I don’t think we should accept funding from the advertorial companies. While this school corruption story is worth looking into, there are many more honorable ways to gain money to do the investigation.
If we want our newspaper to last long and be respected, we need to think about our reputation as a reliable news outlet. Accepting funding from an unreliable ad company could be very damaging to our newspaper. People want real news. True news. The source for news is important and in order to keep our source at a high standard, we need to prove to the people that we won’t take shortcuts. Let’s earn the money some other way.
Personally I think that the issue of corruption in the public schools is more important than a few falsely advertised articles. As long as the articles are legitimate and can still contribute to educating and informing the readers, I don’t see the harm in the advertising department generating a way for the reporters to further investigate the matter. I believe that readers are a force typically shown what they want but would soon forget about the false advertising. This has been done numerous times in the media and I feel it would be futile to act as a vigilante in calling this form of networking “corruption” or “evil”. In the event that the readers did find out about the false advertising, I don’t feel that they could be too offended, and even if they are, money talks, and I think that the public school corruption story would cushion any loss of readership.
Absolutely not. Running advertisements disguised as real articles is the quickest way to destroy your newspapers reputation. When the line between advertisement and content disappears, a newspaper will simply become a tool for the advertising companies. Any motivation to make real content will be lost, and everything will be geared towards making more money. Funding a school corruption report is no excuse to destroy the integrity of your newspaper. Whenever I see paid content that disguises itself as real content, is usually destroys my faith in whoever is making it.
I would argue against it. When someone picks up our paper i want them to read it with faith that what we have printed is objective truth with a sprinkle of rebellion. When our paper writes fake articles fading the difference between a real article and an advertisement we will lose the trust of our reader base and at that point what we do, bringing things like school corruption to light, will fall on deaf ears as they expect this article must be something to help sell floor cleaner. That will quickly lead to a fall in advertisers and before you know it we wont have a paper to shed light on important things like this anymore. Better to miss an opportunity and keep our integrity than to get a scoop at the cost of our client base.
If a newspaper allowed a policy which let ads appear to be legitimate articles all to fund a investigation on corruption, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that same newspaper be investigated for misleading the public. Such a policy is unprofessional and would cause the paper’s name to be tarnished and result in subscribers dropping the paper. As such, no a paper should not do this.
I think that a news source has a responsibility to its viewership to present honest, truthful information. Because of this, I think it would be wrong for a legitimate news source to post advertorials. People may also question the credibility of the source if they see the advertorial next to it. I think that there are always other advertising opportunities that may just need more effort to find.
I do not think we should sell advertorials. If this was our only option to get funding then I would say it would be worth it to report on the public schools corruption because it is the paper’s social responsibility to report on this. However, I believe there are better options for getting funding, such as using the space in the newspaper for regular ads instead of advertorials or any other creative ideas the paper can come up with to get funding.
I would allow them to sell advertorials. I do not think there is anything wrong with an advertorial if it is written correctly and not too commercial. It’s a more interesting advert and newspapers do contain adverts. Plus, the funding is needed for a school corruption story, and this is far more important. The newspaper should be careful with how many advertorials they sell and the content to ensure they keep their customers happy..
Although, I agree the funding is needed I am not sure I agree with the ads in the newspaper. Personally, I prefer to see the news and reports of what is going on rather than what is being sold.
If they chose to allow advertorials then they would be risking corruption themselves. After all people want a paper that is reliable and trust worthy not one that is run down with ads. However, if the newspaper has no other option to fund the story then they are likely to accept the offer anyway. I believe that if they were to all advertorials they would need specific contracts on what material is allowed and what is not. This way they could provide truthful advertorials without risking the respect of the customers.
This actually answered my problem, thanks!
I found this one to be pretty difficult but I think honesty and integrity overrides the corruption lead. Doing so would create a downfall in business for the newspaper. Although it would appear to be a great idea on covering the corruption in public schools, selling advertorials would have no positive impact. There are other ways to gain money rather than putting up false advertising. It’s a quick way to create a bad reputation. Readers should want to read what we provide knowing that it is objective and truthful. Presenting ads is a quick way to lose people’s interests. They will stray away from our paper and support others causing the business to be less successful.
I would not agree ti this idea, because if we sell advertorials but we are actually paid advertising is not a good idea. Because we’ll for sure get enough funds for the project, but it will lose our customers trust and they will think that we are the bias one. If we want to pursue this project, we should find ways to make it possible and not risk our reliability.
I would allow the advertising department to sell advertorials in the paper. Especially if we need the funding not only will look professional but we will benefit from it. This is a common thing in the world today, where we see advertising everywhere. Advertisements are not bad, business is not bad! I think in this day and age it’s become a new norm to see advertisements and either be interested or go our own ways. I understand in a video aspect, for Youtube, for example, advertisements draw the audience away because we don’t want to feel forced and item into our head.
I understand that with all the hype and talk about “fake news” that paid advertising advertorials can be viewed as contributing. However, I think journalism should have few bounds and people should be able t discern their own information their own way. While I do not agree with falsified information, I think people have the right to choose their own information. I believe this especially if it is to fund investigative journalism into corruption within public schools, which is such an important issue.
This is a difficult question. However, I do feel that allowing this to happen could potentially comprise the integrity of the paper. It has the ability to provide funding, but at what cost are we willing to take. Engaging in dishonest and misleading actions could lead to long-term issues for the paper. If our customers reading the paper got wind that we were selling advertorials I believe they would start to question the articles and content that we have put out to the public. There really would be no reason for us to take part in the school corruption in public schools, because without credibility the contents would no longer matter.
I would say yes letting the advertisement team put ads out so you had money to wright articles that matter is something you should allow. Although I would say use it sparsely because if you get known for having to many advertisements people will read the news paper less as they might find all the advertisements annoying. If there is no other way to raise money to fund the article and it is something that people need to know about, I think that using advertising is a viable option. However, in order to keep the reads trust in the newspaper I would be caution in how many ads and how many things it is used. But if the story is good and a good trade off for the advertisement then I would say go for it.
I’m a bit torn, as the funding would be extremely beneficial for the corruption article, however, publishing advertorials could damage the reputation of the paper. I would probably okay with publishing advertorials if it was stated that it was a paid promotion. That way at least the paper would be honest to its readers. However, this would defeat the purpose of the advertorial as it was supposed to look like a legitimate article. If writing the advertorial to appear as a legitimate article was the only way, I suppose I would have to reject the idea of publishing advertorials for funding. It would damage the papers reputation at a time when reputation is extremely important, as it is trying to publish an article about corruption. As a reader, I don’t think it would matter to me if they published advertorials, but I believe that the risk may be too great in this scenario.
This is a tough question. While funding is important for the corruption article, if we betray our readers with these paid advertisements we will lose more than we stand to gain. I think that our best action would be an honest approach with our advertisements. We should let our readers know that they are paid advertisements. The last thing we want is our readers to feel betrayed in any way.
If we sacrifice our integrity in the public eye in order to run an important story, such as corruption in schools, I can’t help but feel like that risks the latter article having a lesser impact on the public. Theoretically, if people did not trust the material of the paper, would they act on it? In the modern mass media market, I don’t think the newspaper would be making a good decision to lower it’s transparency, as there are plenty of mediums available to anyone who loses trust in the newspaper. In fact, I think that transparency could be the solution. An issue such as corruption in schools would almost definitely gain enough traction for funding elsewhere. I don’t see the point of harming trust in the paper’s articles, or potentially how the public regards the issues we are trying to bring attention to.