Today’s Takeaway: When referring to paid media, we mean advertising. The FTC and FCC are the federal agencies in charge of regulating advertising, and I will refer you there for more information on some standards because I am not a lawyer.
Before proceeding, we must recognize, whether we like it or not, that we live in a capitalist society, and accurate journalism often requires money to produce. Journalists should be paid as productive members of our society.
Unless something changes, money will likely be part of the equation in our media ecosystem for the foreseeable future. That is not a bad thing—it’s good! However, as consumers, we must know and evaluate what we consume.
How do we maintain a balance between keeping journalism accurate and profitable simultaneously? In upcoming posts, we will explore this question.
In the past, we paid for journalism and most other forms of media content through advertising. How we keep it profitable in a changing landscape has been an invaluable question.
What does advertising look like in 2024? What does that mean for us as consumers?
Advertising looks different depending on the type of medium, so over the next few posts, I will discuss what advertising methods exist across the various platforms. I want people to be able to distinguish advertising from other forms of content. If we have an educated public to view that, then advertising is not a problem.
I initially decided to write this Substack because most people I speak with think that the media's largest source of propaganda, manipulation, or bias comes from the influence of advertising, ownership, or direct money paid to journalists. FALSE. I can’t stress this enough. Furthermore, this narrative will harm news consumption in the future and drive disinformation.
I often hear: BUT PATRICIA, EVERYONE KNOWS ADVERTISING IS BAD FOR SOCIETY!…. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW CAN YOU NOT NOTICE THE NEW YORK TIMES DOES NOT COVER CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE EXXON ADVERTISES WITH THEM?
Having spent two decades in my career field, I know that assumption couldn’t be further from the truth. Correlations don’t always mean causation.
Why?
I have personally worked for many climate organizations at various levels—name a type of climate activist, and I have worked for them doing media relations. My job was to call the New York Times and ask them to be critical of their advertisers.
I have called newsrooms daily and watched a reporter gleefully write a story and put it on the front page to hold one of their advertisers accountable. In upcoming posts, I will tell you how you can do the same.
An outlet like the New York Times has strict walls between its advertising and editorial departments. I honestly can’t say I have ever seen it broken there in all the times I have ever worked with them.
Let’s go with the assumption, though….The New York Times does not cover climate change because Exxon advertises with them.
How do you explain the existence of the New York Times’ climate change reporting team?
The New York Times has an entire desk to cover climate change.
My database shows at least 20 reporters assigned to cover only climate change at that outlet.
There’s an entire section dedicated to their coverage, including many instances of accountability.
But there is some disparity—for example, many still feel that Exxon is being covered more favorably than it should. What is causing it, if not advertising?
You are correct in noting bias in the newsroom regarding corporations. The short answer to why the playing field is rigged is that earned media falls into the hands of corporations and not the people. Our American public has failed media literacy, which has contributed to the public's decline in truth. That failure is a result of a combination of reasons—from our education to our societal demands—but it is still driving massive damage to our world.
Corporations spend so much money on earned media, often more than advertising, while most Americans have never heard of it. If they haven’t heard of it, how do they know if they are being duped by it?
Worse yet, many journalists seem to lack a complete understanding of what earned media means and how it works, and it is creating a disinformation opportunity.
Is earned media bad? NO! In the right hands, it’s the cornerstone of our Democracy and your right as an American citizen. In the wrong hands, it is the downfall of society.
The problem is that too many people have never heard of it and would not be able to recognize it, so we have biased coverage. Stay tuned for future posts to learn more about this earned media and why we need more Americans informed about it.
Next week, what is free media?