Get Back to the Basics

By Jaelynn Grisso
jg764811@ohio,edu

Sponsored content, in all its forms, has been a part of the journalism world long before the term “sponsored content” or “native content” even existed. Publishers rely of advertising profits to maintain their business – i.e. the news – but the role the advertisers play has been shifting.

It is no secret that the largest form of revenue for most publications is advertising, especially considering the consumer base for subscriptions is shrinking. Even so, using sponsored content is not the answer to financial concerns in a field that has never been particularly lucrative.

Yet, the question of if sponsored content should be used seems to have been entirely replaced by how sponsored content should be used. When did we stop questioning if this was ethical? Perhaps it was around the time big companies began using it, because there is an underlying assumption that if they’re doing it, then it must be acceptable.

Regardless of when the question stopped being asked, it needs to start being asked again. As journalists, we cannot blindly accept a practice which compromises the integrity of our entire field and fosters an even deeper mistrust in the media. Sponsored content, by its very nature, is misleading and only aims to fulfill an agenda without the transparency needed when promoting an agenda. Readers are largely apathetic about reading materials that are designed to persuade them, so long as they are aware that is the purpose.

And as for the revenue, I fully understand that sponsored content can be highly profitable. But at what price ethically? Is it worth compromising the journalistic integrity of an entire publication in order to make a little extra? No; integrity should always come first. The intersection of the news industry and the business world should remain nothing more than an unfortunate necessity and should not begin dictating what content is being produced. As soon as advertisers enforce editorial control, the editorial authority of a publication will be entirely undermined. 

That being said, it is not an all or nothing issue. Some publications could utilize sponsored content without undermining their credibility because of the type of content they regularly produce. For example, BuzzFeed frequently produces materials that are similar to their sponsored content without the sponsor. So if they are producing the same type of material, why not get paid for it? Then which publications shouldn't use sponsored content? Major news publications (or networks) that do hard news. The type of content is so different that it is obvious the publication is only doing it for the money. 

We need to gain back the trust of our readers. Can that happen with every publication using sponsored content? Absolutely not.