[vijayr]

Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians

To me, that is the craziest sentence in the article. Reporters were outsourcing writing to the auto industry? Of course they blamed the pedestrians! In what world is this ethical?

What is next? Sending overdose details to pharma companies for them to blame the drug users?

[ryandrake]

You say this as if it's unusual for news articles to be solely written by various company's PR and marketing teams.

[vijayr]

But there is a difference between promoting a product vs shifting blame, isn't it?

[ryandrake]

In both cases, the entity creating the message is promoting a point of view in which it has a financial stake.

[RickS]

If the success of a product depends on shifting blame, that difference is very blurry.

See uber's "but taxis are evil/medallions are a monopoly!"

[riffic]

The use of the word "Accident" is also the result of the automotive industry. "Crash" would be preferable:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/car-accident-car-crash-...

https://www.transalt.org/news/releases/9545

https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/language_corner_100...

[upofadown]

The auto companies presumably were providing significant advertising to the newspapers. It's reasonable go along with what a significant customer wants. The papers were probably spinning everything for their major advertisers as a matter of course.

Even today it is fun to compare media articles with the original police press release. The media tends to spin such articles against any involved cyclists/pedestrians for free. There doesn't have to be much of a conspiracy, most of the media's consumers are drivers and don't want to hear bad things about that group.

[SilasX]

No one's linking to pg's famous article about it the dynamic? [1] He makes the point that that kind of thing happens because reporters are pressed for time and good journalism is hard. And generally, a PR person who feeds them such an article won't lie, they'll just selectively include facts.

I'm just impressed it was going on even then.

I agree that this kind of thing should be disclosed, just as same as if it were "here's $500 and remember where it came from". It's something of value being provided by an interested party that taints the publication. Not so much that it shouldn't be printed, but definitely enough that it should be disclosed ("I'm just parroting what GM told me").

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

[BearGoesChirp]

> In what world is this ethical?

How many people would be willing to let someone else do their job for them when the cost is adding a little extra bias, something that isn't even a big deal in a single case (but which adds up over time)? It feels like ethics will quickly take a back seat for some small boon.

[jandrese]

Lazy reporters and cost cutting editors have been around since the start of the industry.

News and Advertising have always been closely linked.