Believability Quotient

It must be true; I saw it on the Internet.

"The entire contents of this section supplied by the Advertising Department." -- Newspaper disclaimer.

"Native advertising" has nothing to do with the Cherokee.

Credibility is the only weapon journalism has.

   Print information is more believable than back-fence gossip. Television is more believable than print, partly because it adds video to the mix. Every new information medium starts with a higher believability quotient than its predecessors because its very newness adds to its acceptance.
   But is it reliable? That is an issue that journalists have been struggling with for many years. All things considered, that's all they have -- the willingness of the readers and views to trust the information as reliable, believable, and accurate. And with newspapers and TV news broadcasts, neutrality can be even more important.
   All this, however, is being eroded by the trend to coordinate advertising with editorial efforts in providing information. Independent editors are being replaced by "content managers," who develop "sponsored content" -- advertising masquerading as news.
   In truth, such practices have been going on for years, notably in Real Estate and Automobile section of daily newspapers. Rarely is any negative information found in such sections, which often are nothing more than press releases supplied by the advertisers to fill the space between ads. The more conscientious publishers specify at the top of each page that the entire contents of the section is supplied by the advertising department.
   Television, too, identifies a program as paid for by the advertiser.

   But when the lines blur, when readers and viewers are lulled into thinking that the information presented is a news item and not a commercial message, then there is a problem.
   Journalists have fought for many decades to defend their reliability, their ability to pursue truth and pass it on to the public, knowing that their reputation endorses their credibility.    

   Web sites, however, erode that credibility when those with access to a computer can publish and disseminate their own propaganda without it being filtered by neutral reporters and editors.
   Is this mass freedom to publish a good thing? Perhaps. It's true that many reporters and editors, as well as their publications and TV shows, are not neutral, much less objective. It falls to the public, therefore, to know the difference.

   The bigger problem remains, however, that some media outlets blur the lines, coordinate the news and advertising with commercial material masquerading as editorial news information.
   Public relations professionals know the difference between news and advertising, and operate separately from advertising agencies. Others, however, do not, and combine their marketing efforts with a client's PR needs, presenting a message for their clients as "hard news" when it is really little more than a marketing ploy. And in extreme case, the message goes beyond misleading and becomes flat out wrong.
   That's where government regulation comes in, with Truth in Advertising laws.

   Meanwhile, as new technology -- the Internet and promotional Web sites -- becomes more widespread and traditional media coordinate their news and advertising divisions to maintain readership and ad income, the government as protector of Constitutional First Amendment rights, is stepping in to monitor and regulate the activities of those who would abuse such rights.
   
   "These days, it’s not always clear where news or entertainment ends and advertisements begin," said Bridget Small, consumer education specialist at the FTC. That's why the FTC sponsored a day-long workshop Dec. 4 dealing with the issue.  The goal: To develop ways to help the public differentiate the two, whether the infomercials, sponsored content, infotainment, or any other blurred message appears on any of the new digital media devices.

   Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.