[thisjustinm]

First Thought: Noticed that the NYT is listed as a client on Obviously's site, the main influencer marketing agency mentioned in the piece and can't help but wonder if there is a behind the scenes PR play going on here. There's certainly some journalist merit to the article but without any disclosure that the paper and the company have / do work together it just doesn't feel 100% above board to me.

Second thought: At the risk of falling down a slippery slope, what is the end result of the advertisification of everything? If everyone with any sort of social presence is now a billboard that's going to erode what little "trust" there is in social networks even further. At some point this is going to take down the "review economy" - the Yelps, Foursquare, etc of the world because you won't know who's leaving a review and who's a local nano-influencer posting to get their monthly free meal.

Reminds me of the "ad buddies" from the Netflix show Maniac except instead of seeking them out they seek you out.

[keiferski]

There is no firm difference between “advertising” and “the media” and there never has been. Only varying levels of forthcomingness regarding intent. Burger King is trying to sell you hamburgers - no confusion there. A newspaper? Less clear of what they’re trying to sell you, but don’t doubt it for a second - they’re selling you something.

The NY Times in particular has tried to portray themselves as independent and unbiased, when they’ve been anything but for essentially their entire history.

[CPLX]

This is obviously and painfully false.

There is a fundamental difference between journalism and advertising.

When you see people advancing this point of view it's always worth pausing to notice and reflect on who benefits from efforts to erode this distinction.

[pixl97]

Painfully false, I'm not so sure.

If a media organization is fully user supported then they are separate. The problem, at least in US media, our media is almost completely advertising supported. The editors of the organization always have to be mindful of upsetting the people that actually pay for the service. This can put a deep and hidden bias in the reporting structure.

[keiferski]

You think media organizations aren’t trying to push a particular narrative? They’ve been doing this since yellow journalism, Hearst and Pulitzer over a hundred years ago. Every side of the political spectrum does this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controver...

> When you see people advancing this point of view...

This is an ad hominem and not an argument.

[CPLX]

"Pushing a particular narrative" or generally having a point of view is not the same thing as advertising.

It's undeniable that there are biases and preferences in journalism, and that there's no such thing as a truly objective point of view. Journalism is made by humans.

But that's a fundamentally different argument than equating advertising with journalism. They aren't the same. Fact-checked reported journalism that attempts to be objective is fundamentally a different thing.

And it's also a factual statement to say that there is an organized effort to obscure this difference, and that this effort benefits specific groups.

[hammock]

There is an issue of semantics and nomenclature here. Essentially, the basic point is:

Journalism and advertising are both products (distinct as they are) being sold thru the same media, e.g. a newspaper or a 30-minute cable TV timeslot.

[reggieband]

I consider that the earliest strain of this thought that I am aware of is from Noam Chomsky, who wrote in 1988 the book Manufacturing Consent [1]. There is also the 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman [2].

I think it is fair to say the clarion call of "Fake News" has been around longer than some people think and spans across the political spectrum. In fact, when I hear people insist that CNN or some other mass-media outlets are the cure for alt-right and/or Donald Trump, I wonder if they remember the time not so long ago where they were considered the prime enemies of the left.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

[neya]

This happens because news agencies realized that the original definition of NEWS isn't a viable business model. If I were a reported of a news agency that followed the traditional news model - I'd be saying something like "Hey, this happened here at this time." Because that's the original definition of NEWS (North East West South).

However, over time, news agencies realized the potential of injecting opinions into NEWS as real news. "Hey, here's what we think of what happened at this place at this time. Here's what you should be thinking too" Suddenly, they can do things they couldn't do before:

1. Change the direction of what you should be thinking about.

2. Change the tone of the opinion to reflect positivity or negativity.

3. Masquerade wrongful events as right ones by parallel justifications and unneeded context.

4. Masquerade advertisements as opinions.

5. Derive strong reactions from readers thus increasing engagement.

And this gives them enormous power over us. THIS is their business model - the ability to control (us) a given set of people.

For eg., that's why Facebook is powerful. The value they add to their investors and advertisers isn't being able to connect with everyone and anyone. Instead, they can use their newsfeed to tune what you should be thinking about, how and when exactly. All those reactions they collect, is to fine tune exactly these parameters.

Imagine being able to change your mind or distract you around election time. How valuable is it to governments? I'm not saying they do these things, but then this is the weapon the media (Facebook, Yahoo, etc.) possesses and they could/could have been doing these things to control us.

So, this is what the newspapers are selling.

So, when Yahoo writes "Hey Apple suxxx here's why you should be buying an Android phone instead", you know it's a slow day for them and they just want to increase their engagement and ad revenue. That and probably they took money from some Android maker behind the scenes (this happens all the time).

/endrant

[BurritoAlPastor]

“News” doesn’t derive from the compass directions; that’s a folk etymology. It’s literally just from a weird pluralization of “new”.

Anytime you hear that a word is derived from an unusual contraction or acronym, please check it against a real etymology source.

[CPLX]

> Because that's the original definition of NEWS (North East West South).

Huh? News is just the plural form of the word new.

[inscionent]

Today's media landscape is more diverse and independent than ever before. This is why I can read 16 reviews about a video game then watch 50 more.

All individual actors have agendas and flaws. Maybe a harsher review is produced on a bad day, but that doesn't inherently mean the reviewer is on the take.

Don't confuse media, the obvious medium, with journalism, the content, that is how propaganda is mislabeled and spread.

Examples 1 and 2 could be raw opinion rooted in fact that the reader disagrees with or could be propaganda. Heavily dependent on the context and source.

Examples 3 and 5 are stated in the negative and perceived as propaganda, but where does rightful reporting end and 'unneeded context' start? When the reader begins to disagree? Again heavily dependent on the context and source.

Example 4 is a paid endorsement, exactly what should be expected in a capitalist system.

Also news isn't based on an acronym for cardinal directions. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/news-etymology/

[thoughtexplorer]

Once upon a time newspapers were trying to sell you more newspapers by being a good source of news and journalism, generally.

TV news used to be a loss leader until the past 20 years or so. You could see essentially the same news regardless of what channel you preferred. Now the world looks completely different depending on what source you consume.

It's a relatively recent phenomenon that news has been corrupted by advertising, clickbait and catering to specific audiences as they fight for smaller and smaller pieces of the pie.

[gaius]

Traditionally in the newspaper business advertising revenue paid for paper, ink, printing and distribution, and sales of the paper itself paid for journalism. Cut off the latter and what’s left?

I recently cancelled my sub to the NYT after nearly 20 years; now they are trying to tempt me back with the slogan “debate, not division”. But they still employ guys like Charlie Blow who just vomit bile across the page to drive more clicks so that’s a no from me. In retrospect they have been on the decline for years, and paying customers like me saw no fewer ads and were subjected to no less tracking than free readers.

On the back of Carryrou’s work on Theranos I have a sub to WSJ now. I am totally willing to pay for content, but I won’t tolerate piss-taking.

[gfs78]

I worked for years in media. The content is there just to justify the ads or to pick readers so to gather advertisers. Nothing else.

[cagenut]

some of its there for bots to crawl!

(we used to jokingly refer to the article body as "seo ballast")

[SlowRobotAhead]

I was working with a guy who came from let say “disruptive car company”. He really laid out and explained that almost all “news” you see in the NYT, WaPo, etc about big companies was designed to first and foremost effect a stock price. When you see “charismatic company leader does X” it was a directed move to effect some stock. That at his company he was in the marketing, PR, and finance co-op that did exactly this.

Laid out just how much everything is manipulated. So yes, I believe that if you are reading an NYT about this and the target happens to be advertisers on NYT, that’s not an accident, nor is it speaking highly of NYT’s journalism standards.