Where's the line between journalism and PR?


Klumpen

Run away! Run away!
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
8,578
Location
Uncanny Valley
Just a recent more blatant example of the creation of paid reviews:
Game dev emails Pocket Gamer to submit his game for review. Their sales team responds instead, offering to sell coverage as well as event sponsorship packages (which include significant editorial content).
This is happening since the 90s but it's stunning how blatant it has become because nobody cared for so long.
The prices for reviews in the last picture are hilarious.

Since it is so common, I seriously wonder how it's possible to find information about products with no payment involved.
For video gaming there's at least http://www.deepfreeze.it/ but for everything else it gets difficult.
Even the German review site for doctors is mostly paid advertizing where they give themselves top ratings all the time while you have to prove several times whether your negative review is legit.

It's always interesting to read what Reuters thinks about all this:
handbook.reuters.com/extensions/docs/pdf/handbookofjournalism.pdf
http://digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2016/predictions-2016/

I wonder if stuff like this has affected the Pyra already or if it will be.
 
In response to your title, I thought they were the same since the beginning of journalism, and probably whatever preceded it.

I do appreciate the links.
 
I don't see what's so bad with that email.
Nowhere do they say anything about the review, it more sounds like an additional offer. They are not asking for a paid review, as far as I can see.

This is pretty normal. A site like this lives from advertisement (where should they get their money from?) so maybe they send that mail to everyone who asks for a review?

If the review is not affected by this, then it's not a problem. Only if a truly horrible game gets top ratings because the creator pays for ads, then it's wrong.

One of the biggest german gaming magazines back in the 90s also had ads for games (makes sense), but they still gave the same game a rating of 10% or lower (if it was truly horrible).
 
If there's a clear indicator on the published website between advertising content and editorial, I don't have a problem. However I don't think a pissy little disclaimer that 'some of this stuff might be have been paid for' on indistinguishable content counts as clear indication myself. So by my reckoning, that sample article crosses the line.

In their favour, it's clearly the sort of thing that's written up from a PR piece published by the publisher, so as a reader I don't expect it to be unbiased, but there's a difference between a publisher spending the money to write up a press release, then releasing that to news sites for free, and paying the news site to write up that sort of fluff piece.

And advertising department is quite within its rights to offer paid advertisements on a news site, but as I say I reckon it should always be adverts one side of the line, and editorial the other.
 
As with your topic, there is none. You can also add to journalism and PR, propaganda and marketing. All the same stuff.
If one works these areas for a living, there will never be truth. If it is a person´s side hobby, then the truth can be found.
 
As with your topic, there is none. You can also add to journalism and PR, propaganda and marketing. All the same stuff.
If one works these areas for a living, there will never be truth. If it is a person´s side hobby, then the truth can be found.

Well, last year there was a list about how much journalistic integrity can be found in specific media outlets according to Reuters principles/scale and especcially "new media" outlets rated extremely low.
I wonder why I can't find the list anymore, it was probably eliminated due to giving many media outlets a (deserved) bad name. I've linked Reuter's scale it was built on in the opening post.

When it comes to impartiality, objectivity and disclosure about personal and financial ties, things seem to be getting worse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity
http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/es...-and-impartiality-for-digital-news-consumers/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/05/does-journalism-still-require-impartiality
 
I don't think we need objective journalism. The thing is that you can never have it. The words you choose, the topics you choose to cover, these are choices that you need to take and they can never be truly neutral.

As Hunter S. Thompson wrote:
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”

I'd rather have journalists who fully embrace subjectivity.
 
Exactly what ElPoco said, the same also applies to documentary movies.

On a side note about games and movies, I have seen outlets putting games down for being shitty (and they were) and the result would be that the company behind it will simply stop sending review copies to that one.
Such is that the outlet can only cover the product after it is released as a review and thus looses the ability to do a work in progress thing, and that is the kind of hype that usually brings new costumers to a new´s outlet.

As with movies, it is the same, bad review = not being invited to premieres or the studio will simply not do one.

I recall that CU amiga magazine (probably Crash and a few others) were somehow quite fair back in the days. It was only at the last drops of amiga life that the magazine started doing jaba.
There were many games advertised on the magazine and reviewed as a crap game on the very same issue.

Nowadays I kind of have to switch my game new´s site every 5 years if they get big enough to become meaningless.
 
I don't think we need objective journalism. The thing is that you can never have it. The words you choose, the topics you choose to cover, these are choices that you need to take and they can never be truly neutral.

As Hunter S. Thompson wrote:

I'd rather have journalists who fully embrace subjectivity.

I disagree. Saying no one should even try to have journalistic integrity and should just write propaganda instead of uncolored information is a terrible thing to say.
It's like saying "people should murder each other because humans are a violent species anyway and trying to be peaceful is hypocritical".

Of course there is a certain motivation behind choosing specific information but it could at least be just a good willed passing on of unknown information as long as the information is written as cold facts without adjectives or claims that are not supported by proof.

It seems as though there's only yellow press around anymore and nearly nobody is even trying to just be informative anymore due to the fact that people don't want to be informed but rather have their echo chambers where they read what they believe in already anyway, giving the reader no remotely objective insight whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
It's like saying "people should murder each other because humans are a violent species anyway and trying to be peaceful is hypocritical".
That doesn't sound too bad, either. While I am not that concerned about peace or hypocrisy, it might reduce the population and the damage it causes. The world could use that right now.

It seems as though there's only yellow press around anymore and nearly nobody is even trying to just be informative anymore due to the fact that people don't want to be informed but rather have their echo chambers where they read what they believe in already anyway, giving the reader no remotely objective insight whatsoever.
Get your news from sources you disagree with. As a few of us have said, you would have always had a hard time getting news (and related stuff) from an unbiased source. Something as simple as focusing on one event instead of another will already be related to their interests before you even get to the quality of the coverage. Sure, it might be nice if they try to be unbiased, but they and their readers/viewers/listeners are deluding themselves if they believe that any news source is impartial.
 
That doesn't sound too bad, either. While I am not that concerned about peace or hypocrisy, it might reduce the population and the damage it causes. The world could use that right now.


Get your news from sources you disagree with. As a few of us have said, you would have always had a hard time getting news (and related stuff) from an unbiased source. Something as simple as focusing on one event instead of another will already be related to their interests before you even get to the quality of the coverage. Sure, it might be nice if they try to be unbiased, but they and their readers/viewers/listeners are deluding themselves if they believe that any news source is impartial.

90% impartiality is definitely better than none. The problem may be, that most people find impartial articles extremely boring since they have to be long, fact based and without adjectives to show as many sides to a topic equally. A choice of topics has nothing to to with partiality regarding a certain position inside the topic. If you have a general interest in handhelds, you don't only want to read about Nintendo and Sony of course (which would mean the outlet isn't really about handhelds but about Nintendo and Sony) and if you read an article about the new Nintendo handheld you don't want it to just show the good sides with many adjectives and mention one or two downsides in a side sentence.
 
Give me any news source you feel has done a good job at being impartial, whether general news or related to a specific field or topic, and I will provide you with examples of important news they skipped over to cover things that were more important or interesting to them or the readers, or where they completely ignored major parts and sides of stories. They and the supporters of these organizations will provide plenty of excuses for why the news and/or additional facts and opinions are less important. That doesn't sound impartial to me. Neither does giving certain stories a lot of space on the front page, and giving other "stories" a few sentences on a less prominent page. I guess everyone should be happy they got any information on it at all, but somehow it is acceptable to you if they don't cover it equally. Odd, since that is essentially what you described in your last sentence, except instead of only getting a few quick points about some negatives with the new Nintendo handheld, they just don't mention the thing at all. But they are impartial, so it's ok.
 
I tried to show you nuance, unfortunately that seems to have failed for some reason (language barrier?).
Only reporting about Nintendo and Sony handhelds and no Pandora/Pyra on a site dedicated to handhelds is bad, writing pure PR for one of those is even worse.
I'd expect them to do some research and include all current handhelds they could find including Dragonbox, GPD, JXD, etc... and at least try to be impartial and cover several use cases as well as the technical side (hard- and software) as objectively as possible.
Some people here say that they shouldn't even try and just write hit-pieces with buzz-words about their favourite thing (or whoever gave them money or their devices for free) and don't bother being informative.
 
Subjective news isn't necessarily propaganda. To take the case of video game journalism, I'd rather have a journalist write about his personal enjoyment of the game (the way they do in Rock, Paper, Shotgun) rather than have him use a set of "objective measurements" and giving the game 7/10 because it has 8/10 graphics and 6/10 gameplay and 7/10 story.
 
I tried to show you nuance, unfortunately that seems to have failed for some reason (language barrier?).
Only reporting about Nintendo and Sony handhelds and no Pandora/Pyra on a site dedicated to handhelds is bad, writing pure PR for one of those is even worse.
No, I picked up on it, however many of the non-gaming examples I have in mind are closer to a news source about gaming handhelds ignoring Nintendo sometimes (plus I got stuck on what you said about choice of topics, and still think that the way they think about this will not go away after they decide to report on a topic, and this is why I seek out a wide variety of news coverage on something if I am looking into something, including those sources that people think are crackpots). If you want to discuss non-gaming stuff we can do that in a PM. It is also possible things are different in your part of the world.

I'd expect them to do some research and include all current handhelds they could find including Dragonbox, GPD, JXD, etc... and at least try to be impartial and cover several use cases as well as the technical side (hard- and software) as objectively as possible.
That isn't how typical news companies/organizations work. They will talk about things that apply to known and major companies, people, events, whatever. They will cover other things when that will help them make money (this person killed this other person for crazy reasons or reasons people can relate to, or maybe they did something that seems odd before, during, or after killing the person) or if they need filler (this person killed somebody). This is how it has already been for a long time, and it seems to me like it was this way before the printing press.

Some people here say that they shouldn't even try and just write hit-pieces with buzz-words about their favourite thing (or whoever gave them money or their devices for free) and don't bother being informative.
These news sources (papers, channels, sites) are mostly there to make money. There is a lot of stuff that happens everyday, and they obviously won't cover everything, so while they may cover how the person on one side of you was walking around in the street naked, but they may skip that the person on that lives on the other side of you made a really good meal last Sunday and shared it with the whole building...or they might, I dunno. Since they can't discuss everything they will write about things many people are interested in, and that will keep the readers(etc.) satisfied and coming back for more. The people in charge are fallible humans too, so even if someone wanted to write a story about something they may not get approval for it. They aren't going to run stories about things no one knows about and only a single percent or less care about. This is actually why the internet is so great, now that 0.001% that are interested in the Pyra can find out about it.

I think this is another one of those areas where we won't agree. I think I understand your points, though. I still have no opinion about what you mentioned in your original post since it isn't too far off of how news usually seems to work. We may not like it, and that is why I started seeking different sources for my news when I was still very young.
 
The problem is the medium - the web. In the olden days there was no need to lure people into buying a newspaper, because it usually was the only news source available. either you bought it or you didn't. Today an online news outlet depends on clicks for ad revenue. It will sooner or later use click bait headlines and exclusive deals with an effective gag - they will cope because they want or need more of those - and thus succumb to bad journalism. I guess.
 
The problem is the medium - the web. In the olden days there was no need to lure people into buying a newspaper, because it usually was the only news source available. either you bought it or you didn't. Today an online news outlet depends on clicks for ad revenue. It will sooner or later use click bait headlines and exclusive deals with an effective gag - they will cope because they want or need more of those - and thus succumb to bad journalism. I guess.

Exactly.

...

It seems as though there's only yellow press around anymore and nearly nobody is even trying to just be informative anymore due to the fact that people don't want to be informed but rather have their echo chambers where they read what they believe in already anyway, giving the reader no remotely objective insight whatsoever.

So true, but for me, the reason is not what the readers want to read, but what the major companies push to the outlet (jabá) and how much they are willing to pay for support.
So the real problem is that if someone is doing that journalism for a living, 100% chance he will glup the offer. There are fair ones, but they are hard to find, always easier to ask friends what they have been reading.

And no, there are many counter-ethical excuses to support the act, it won´t look ugly.
Current and past tv/radio shows, internet and magazines have been doing this all along.

CU amiga magazine, while it rated with numbers, stated the ´personal opinion´ excuse just like RPS and other magazines.
That itself does not make one jaba free, CU amiga did it on the later issues and I suspect RPS does too once in a while (very moderate), specially after the Sim City case.
 
To be frank, we need more Jim Sterling. Granted, there is already quite a lot of him. But you just can't get enough, can you?!
 
Back
Top