Euphemisms have their place. Maybe you don’t need to tell a 4-year-old
what really happened to his puppy just yet. It’s a kindness.
“Enhanced interrogation”?
“Downsizing”? They’re meant to
spare feelings too. In these cases the feelings being protected are those of
the speaker rather than the listener, but you can see where the intent is
similar.
Each industry has its own expressions, and publishing has come up with
a nifty one: “native advertising.” It amounts to inserting advertising into the
editorial matter of a publication. Not sure where the name got its start, but
parsing it out, I’d guess that saving “advertising” in the name was a way to
attract advertisers, while the “native” part is calculated to make it sound
healthful. Like “natural” prefaced to ingredients for all sorts of
foods.
It used to be that publishers and journalists were so concerned about
even the appearance of conflict of interest that they maintained a “Chinese
wall” between the department that wrote news and the department that sold
advertising. No advertiser could ever be able to influence news coverage. If you
didn’t keep that wall separating the editorial and advertising departments,
your publication was considered to be prostituting itself.
I’ve written for a number of trade journals, but I’ve never been a
full-time journalist, and I attended Business rather than Journalism school.
Even so, I’ve always subscribed to the idea that advertising should be kept out
of the editorial side. There’s enough persuasion going on already without
slipping in more in the guise of reporting. Yes, there are federal regulations
and industry codes of ethics that mandate transparency for the new format, but
as we know, regulations are skirted regularly and ethics…ain’t what they used
to be.
Maybe the worst part is, now reporters and editors --- the people
formerly under almost Hippocratic Oath not to
do it -- are being conscripted to write the material. The argument for
it is that, in business publications, for example, they write about the companies in their
industry regularly and so are in the best position to “go native” (while we’re
talking in euphemisms).
Unarguable as far as it goes, but what happens when and if one of
those reporters or editors has some negative news to report about one of the
advertisers he or she’s been shilling for? The conflict of interest that’s been latent
all along now becomes real. Where is his/her loyalty expected to lie? It’s the
old “serving two masters” problem, and I haven’t heard that anyone has come up
with an answer to that one yet.
My inclination is to bemoan the change, although practical
considerations tell me I should celebrate it. I’m in the catbird seat: I can
write advertising that reads like
journalism, and journalism slanted to persuade. But I still don’t like it.
(Belay that posting date up there by the title; this was ready on Sunday the 26th.
I forgot to post it!)
(Belay that posting date up there by the title; this was ready on Sunday the 26th.
I forgot to post it!)
