[morgante]

Advertisements are paid for. This wasn't.

Saying that it was is a pretty major accusation and, if true, would be a gigantic breach of journalistic ethics.

There's a huge difference between a positive review and an advertisement. Conflating the two is intellectually lazy.

[cb18]

Advertisements are paid for. This wasn't.

I've not read the article, but it makes sense to remember that 'payment' can come in various forms, not just cash. Access, favors, special privileges granted, etc.

This isn't my purview, per se, but I know there is some concern about this sort of thing, particularly in political reporting which has become much less adversarial compared to the not so distant past.

You're of course unlikely to find many of these concerns voiced very loudly in the 'press.'

[morgante]

Sure, but that applies to basically all articles (especially political ones, as you note). Every single reporter is balancing their interest in preserving access with their goals of accuracy in publishing.

Advertisement is a specific term and applying it to all articles that you don't agree with undermines its usefulness.