Every day there are ethical decisions that impact the hundreds or thousands of people who watch, read, listen, and/or click on a media source. The foundation for making the right decision starts with ethics classes in college. Students in the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism will use this blog to reflect on ethical questions in the media today.
When reading about Astroturfing, I thought back about how many times I have seen products placed in a TV show or substitutes put into the show instead. There are countless shows that have used the "Lets" potato chips as a replacement for the name brand, as we can see by the two examples below. These bags are used as a way to avoid paying copyright fees to the big brands while still giving the feeling that they are the brands we know and love. They use the same colors, same type of lettering, and of course, hold the same product. While this is not the only example of avoiding copyright, it is one of the most common.
Source: Orange is the New Black
Source: Community
Advertising in TV Shows and Movies
The idea of astroturfing made me think of "Schitt's Creek", a Canadian TV show that became popular after being on Netflix. In this show, there is a moment where Alexis, one of the main characters, is trying to have a screening of her mother's new movie. As most things do in this series, everything went wrong. Crows attacked the audience and mayhem ensued. Alexis somehow is able to play this off as a PR stunt that she supposedly orchestrated to help hype up the movie. You can watch the clip here. It causes her to land a job with the streaming company, Interflix. While Alexis did not mean for anything to happen, she was able to capitalize on the 'successful screening' and the movie became an instant classic.
Advertising has become so prevalent that we do not always realize it is happening. It has become so ingrained in our society that it can be hard to know if we wanted to buy -that- specific brand of deodorant because we think it works well or because we briefly saw an ad for it online or in a show.
One of the most popular movie franchises of the last decade, The Avengers, is not immune from this, either. If you sit down and watch a Marvel movie with the intention of finding product placement, you will be surprised with how many you can find. It has happened so often that Disney+ now has product placement warnings on certain movies where it is common. Is Disney+ doing the right thing with these warnings or are they an unnecessary addition in this world where everything is an advertisement? After all, the movies had to be sponsored by someone.
Media and stakeholder groups have accused public relations practitioners of being spin doctors and describing a reality that suits their purposes. This attitude is encapsulated in the descriptor that an activity is merely a "PR ploy", a "PR maneuver" or a "PR effort." Practices such as "flogging" (fake blogging), "astroturfing" (fake grassroots lobbying), and "stealth marketing" (fake promotions with actors masquerading as private citizens) have come under criticism.
Of all the word-of-mouth marketing techniques, stealth marketing is particularly efficient. In a digitized world, it might be surprising to learn that word-of-mouth marketing can often give content marketing and email marketing a run for their money. To learn how effective this organic method is for spreading the news about a product check out these figures. There are 2.4 billion brand-related conversations every day in the US with over 90% of them happening offline and 66% are positive.
Every year, Starbucks the coffee brand releases a unique design for their holiday cups and in 2015, the design was thought by some to be very understated, too plain and not Christmassy enough! Pundits, consumers and critics made their voices heard and their opinions known about the lack of elaborate cup design. The whole ordeal created a massive media buzz about the product across the entire planet. Much later the news leaked that the cup controversy was fake. In fact only very few people actually hated the cup, but the stir caused Starbucks’ sales to soar.
The massively popular TV show “Game of Thrones” suffered a so-called “blooper” when a Starbucks cup was visibly left on the table in one of the scenes. Obviously, this wasn’t really a blooper, but the unexpected appearance of the object got the people talking online and offline. This was a well-thought-out publicity stunt that captured the attention of viewers across the world.
In line with the Axe body spray brand’s commercial messaging of men becoming irresistible to the opposite sex when using Axe body spray, their new guerilla marketing campaign created a new narrative as well as a story about the traditional exit sign. In a classic guerilla/stealth move, Axe made a modification to a traditional “exit” sign used in places such as garages and public buildings. Then Axe body spray added customized stickers in the same style to that of existing exit man sign; however, they then added women figures chasing after the man figure.
Released in 2003, "The Italian Job" was a re-make of a much-loved film. The 2003 version used some key elements from the 1969 original such as the title, a once in a lifetime robbery, and the Mini Cooper to inspire a story about revenge and payback set in LA. Movies are a commonly used media for product placement and this movie turned into a big screen ad for the Mini Cooper brand.
Undercover marketing stirs up conversations to bring consumers closer to the brand and get better acquainted with their products. In the process, it ensures significant perks for the marketers using it. Stealth marketing advantages include the fact that it creates pre-launch interest, promotes without advertising, boosts brand image, identifies ideal customer profiles and saves money.
Stealth marketing does have potential pitfalls and downsides, such as damaging the brand image. Instead of building a positive brand image, stealth marketing campaigns can backfire dramatically. In 2006, Sony’s online video and fan site campaign promoting the PSP console took a turn when consumers discovered that the enthusiastic fan from the videos was really a paid actor. While this did not impact PSP sales negatively, it did some damage to Sony’s reputation through negative buzz about the brand. Certain stealth marketing acts and practices fall into the gray area of legality in certain jurisdictions. In the European Union, for example, numerous stealth marketing strategies are forbidden by law. A business that considers using undercover marketing first needs to be aware of local laws regarding this type of advertising.
In Japan, the term "stealth marketing" is used to describe the failure to disclose promotional material in the media as such, or the presentation of paid content or advertorials as legitimate editorial coverage.
Recent investigative reports in the Japanese business media around so-called ‘stealth marketing’ tactics led by PR firms have sparked questions as to whether the industry needs to draw up more stringent regulations to ensure greater transparency.
I went to a park today. I walked in silence among 300 strangers as I held a sign that read Protect Kids, Not Guns. We listened to speeches and grieved together as the names of the victims of the latest mass shootings were read aloud.
When I was in elementary school, my greatest fear was not for myself but for the awkward kid who was consistently picked last for the recess kickball team. When it was my turn to be captain, I always picked him first. The traditional fire-drill was a once a month occurrence at the school and four times a year we had our regular California earthquake drill. We did not have active shooter drills. It was unheard of.
1999
My daughter was two years old the day of the Columbine shooting. One of the high school students murdered that day was Lauren Townsend. Lauren was a valedictorian nominee. A member of the honor society. Captain of the volleyball team.
9 News
I think about her often. She most likely would have her own little ones running around as grandma and grandpa doted on their grandchildren. But gun violence ended her life and so many others who were killed that day.
My Daughter's Name is Lauren
I have never met the Townsend family but I made a secret promise to the them. I promised I would raise my daughter, Lauren, to be kind, spirited, academic, and a leader, just as their Lauren was before her life was tragically cut short. I feel so lucky. My daughter has grown into an accomplished young woman.
My daughter's school years were much different than mine. Of course there was the traditional fire-drills and earthquake drills and now K-12 lockdown shooter drills. Once she entered middle school, there were self defense assemblies, which coincided with the lockdown shooter drills. The flyer sent home with the kids went as follows:
Step one: report any strange sound
Step two: If you hear active shooter alarm, barricade yourself in classroom, lock all doors
Step three: pile desks in front of entrance
Step four: hide
Step five: if shooter is in classroom, fight back if possible
Step six: if shooter is on other side of campus, escape by foot to nearest neighborhood
Step seven: don't wear bright colors to school, it makes you an easy target when running
NRA Public Relations
The National Rifle Associations Convention was to take place a few days after the Columbine mass murders and only a few miles from the killings. Twenty years after that eventful day, National Public Radio received a recorded audio of a meeting that took place a day after Columbine with the NRA and their public relations firm. They huddled in distress, not over the loss of life, but for the negative press that would be coming their way. Columbine was a defining moment for the NRA.
Over the next two decades, this unapologetic message would come to define the NRA's tone in the wake of mass shootings at American schools. After 32 people were killed at Virginia Tech in 2007 : "This is a time for people to grieve, to mourn, and to heal. This is not a time for political discussions or public policy debates." After the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." And after the 2018 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, the NRA's spokesperson said bluntly, "Many in legacy media love mass shootings."
The Perfect Spin
Corporate news is big business. The National Rifle Association is a 501 C4 tax exempt "non-profit" and a helluva big business. They have their own in-house public relations firm and a willing Congress to project the NRA talking points. In referencing the Financial Times article, The Invasion of Corporate News, The lines between journalism and PR are rapidly becoming blurred as business interest bypass traditional media to get their message across. The public relations tapes revealed by NPR showed an interesting connection to corporate news, messaging, and Congress. As noted in the NPR piece: "We got a call from Congressman Tancredo, who is ... as good as they get, and he's nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof," says baker. La Pierre claims that Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles, R-Okla., had secretly asked him for talking points to use after the shooting. "I was talking to Nickles' office this morning, and what they told me is they're planning on sending them all to schools because what they wanted us to do was secretly provide them with talking pints."
And here we go ......... the National Rifle Association public relations firms sends talking points to members of Congress. These pro-NRA members of Congress are interviewed and or quoted by every local and national paper, and it costs them nothing.
A Master Class in Deception
October 1, 2017 - 58 Dead. An assault rifle was used to massacre 58 people enjoying a concert in Las Vegas. 500 people were injured. The NRA was praised for their "action on gun safety".
In the article what The NRA can teach us about the art of public persuasion, "Whatever you think of the national Rifle Association you have to give them credit for some highly effective issue management. In the wake of the shooting rampage in Las Vegas, they could have dusted off their usual response after every previous mass shooting. But instead, the public relations at the NRA came up with an audacious new approach - they called for a review of the so-called bump stocks, which are devices retrofitted to turn a legal semi-automatic weapon into an illegal automatic killing machine. In issue management terms, the NRA's strategy was a classic case of "look over here" while maintaining its devotion to its core objectives."
"By seeming to give away something that is peripheral to the gun rights issue, the NRA implemented a perfect example of the tried and true "issue diversion tactic". In doing so, it positioned itself as part of the solution, rather than as a key part of they problem."
Grassroots, ground-up organizing is the most effective way to motivate and fire up people about an issue. In political campaigns, it is well understood that the most effective messenger to potential voters is their friends or family. Having a friend share and advocate for the campaign's positions leads to people being far more receptive to the information. Why is this? It’s because people trust people they know and are less trusting of big corporations and campaigns. The only thing is that wealthy donors who fund campaigns are aware of this too.
Their solution to getting around the general public not trusting them is simple. Change the messenger to "local advocates." This is precisely what the Koch family did in Virginia when they found some local parents who were upset about the COVID policies of their local school. They could take a natural movement, amplify it, and fund it far beyond what it actually was. Why did they do this? To push the agenda, they have been driving and advocating since the 1960s, defunding public education and promoting privately funded education. How does this type of astroturfing work? It isn’t all done with bots, as one might assume, but rather by real people employed to create multiple fake profiles. All of these profiles are then pushing the same narrative making it appear as though it is a widely and deeply held position.
It takes a lot of money to employ real people to perform these actions but setting up a website with fake or inflammatory news stories isn’t complicated or expensive as one researcher found. It not only wasn’t tricky, but it was profitable to do. The researcher received an ad revenue check shortly after creating it. So, not only is political astroturfing a way to set a narrative around an issue, but it is also a potentially very lucrative practice. This helps us see why it is so dangerous.
A silver lining is that if a group is outed as being funded by millionaires or billionaires, it can lose credibility with the people it’s trying to sway. People do not like being tricked into doing something or taking a position on something. People are willing to listen to someone if they are upfront and transparent about their connections to an issue but far less forgiving when they are purposefully misled about a person’s ties to a subject.
Sometimes the spheres of information and advertisements mix, whether it be an ad made to appear like a story in a newspaper, or even more pointed, releasing false information to misrepresent an issue, as in astroturfing.
One interesting area in this arena is a company run website, or brand journalism, such as the Richmond Standard news site that is funded by Chevron. One slight area of caution is that it was run by the company itself, so things like oil spills or environmental concerns, may not be fully covered. While it presents news, its coming from the company itself could be seen as a conflict of interest when unfavorable stories take place.
I was quite surprised to come across a similar type of site, when looking up the Dakota Access Pipeline, a highly contested piece of infrastructure that would carry oil across several states, and whose construction was met with much protest by environmentalists and indigenous tribes, ever since it was first announced in 2015.
When I searched DAPL (for short), the top search result was a site called Dakota Access Pipeline Facts. And one of the first lines read that “The pipeline is the safest and most efficient means to transport crude oil from the geographically constrained region”, which I was momentarily surprised again to read, as that seemed to be quite the flip side from everything I recall hearing about the pipeline when it was first built. I remember many months of protests, and widespread support for the prevention of the pipeline, citing that it would be built near important Native American land, and could endanger water nearby sources. So to read that it was very safe, runs counter to what I had heard.
I went to check the publisher of the website for clues, and it looks like it was from Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline. Upon further looking, many of the pages of the site mentioned the benefits the pipeline would bring, and (written in bold lettering) that it did not cross any Native American lands. Once again, these claims seems to be opposed to the ones of the protestors and objectors of the pipeline. It definitely seems as though the site was mentioning only the benefits the line had, and not too much of the controversy surrounding it.
There was one graph though, that did stand out. It mentioned how the DAPL line was constructed along the same path as an already existing pipeline. This makes it seem that it is not drilling into a completely new area, just extending a similar pipe line trail. Could this be taken as truthful information?
With the website’s info at hand, and the protests surrounding the pipeline, I decided to see if there were any other sites out there reporting on the line that might show an objective look at the situation.
One article I found mentioned how since the line has been built, there have only been a couple very minor leaks (at least, up until that year). With the most extensive spill coming from a different section of the line that ran past Tennessee, operated by an Energy Transfer subsidiary.
Oil Spills Graph: The Intercept, 2018
Though another article mentioned that some farmers in the area, whose land the pipe cuts across, feel that not all of the soil has returned to its previous growing state, and that the company hasn’t yet fully rebuilt or remediated the soil of which they said was part of the construction process. All while a note from Energy Transfer said that “the company is mostly done remediating Iowa land impacted by the project and working with a few farmers to fix things. The spokesperson said the company also paid farmers in advance for three to five years worth of crop loss.”
One more article I saw mentioned how the DAPL case had been taken to courts, especially over how the Energy Transfer company had yet to full disclose to the Native American cities nearby the full extensive plans and backups they had in case of leaks, which the Native Tribes said could endanger Lake Oahe, and a vital drinking water source for many. A judge even ruled in favor of pausing the pipeline and conducting another more extensive environmental review.
While the DAPL site above does present information about the pipeline, it does not entirely encompass the whole picture or the multiple perspectives surrounding the construction. Labeling the site as “Facts” makes it sound pretty definitive. And if this info was the first you had read about the Dakota Pipeline, as it came up first in the search results, it could be misleading. Particularly when considering the possible motives of Energy Transfer to want to put information out there about the project. It could be looking to brush aside some of the other ongoing counterpoints.
In 2018, during an ongoing feud between female rappers, Nicki Minaj and Cardi B, Minaj stated on her radio show that Cardi B's claim to fame was "sympathy and payola." According to NewsWeek, the term payola quickly became a trending topic with more than 23,000 mentions on Twitter.
So what exactly is payola? According to Dictionary.com, payola is a secret or private payment in return for the promotion of a product, service, etc., through the abuse of one's position, influence, of facilities.
In other words, Nicki was claiming that Cardi's publicity team was paying to have the artist's music and image promoted.
Photo courtesy of BBC
Payola throughout the decades
If you're shocked at the idea that an artist could pay their way to the top of the music charts, you'll be disheartened to know that this isn't the first-time this kind of thing has happened.
As a matter of fact, payola has been in the music industry for quite some time and was made illegal in the U.S in 1960.
According to MusicThinkTank, "the first evidence of payola can be traced back to W.M Hutchinson, a rising song publisher, could not get famous singers of the time to sing his songs since the singers were so busy with other publishing companies. W.M. decided he would pay them some money to sing his song, plus the royalties."
Since then, stories of money being exchanged to promote musicians or help maintain their images in the eye of the public, have circulated throughout the music industry for decades.
The impact on music journalism
From a journalist perspective, payola is an issue for several reasons. The biggest problem is that it poses a threat to the integrity of the field of journalism.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, "journalists should refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality or may damage credibility."
The Radio Television News Association Code of Ethics takes a similar stance by stating that "commercial endorsements are incompatible with journalism because they compromise credibility. In journalism, content is gathered, selected, and produced in the best interests of viewers, listeners and reader- not in the interests of somebody who paid to have a product or position promoted and associated with a familiar face, voice or name."
With that being said, it's clear that there's no room for payola in music journalism or in any other field of journalism for that matter. At a time when anyone can publish a story on the internet and call themselves a journalist, it's more important than ever that true journalists act independently... even if that means turning down a couple extra bucks in exchange for an artist's promotion.
For this blog post, I want to talk about checkbook journalism. Checkbook journalism is the practice of news outlets and journalists paying sources for information. Checkbook journalism, though usually not called that, is typically talked about in some aspect within ethics codes. Ethics codes warn about paying any source for information. Payments which may involve money, but also concern any kind of exchange for source material. It's unethical for several reasons. It creates incentives for people to sell stories instead of just coming forward, it may cause a disadvantage for news networks that lack funds to pay sources, and it can lead to questionable credibility of the source and network. However, does that mean that all compensation for people who speak with journalists is unethical?
In an article by Robert Boynton for the Columbia Journalism Review, he explores checkbook journalism a little more in depth. In his writing he discusses instances where subjects were compensated by journalists and why those instances may have not been as morally unsound as it may seem. In several of the stories, subjects had agreed to speak without being offered compensation in the start, but had been paid after the writer felt indebted to their subject. In one instance during the article, Boynton references the writer John Krakauer. Krakauer wrote Into Thin Air, a book that chronicles the fatal story of eight climbers who died while trying to summit Mt.Everest. Krakauer insisted that after writing his book the subjects be compensated for their contributions. The people involved in his book had been through horrendous pain and loss, but had been willing to talk about it for the sake of his book. In another story in the article, Boynton writes about Alex Kotlowitz, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal. Kotlowitz spoke to him about a story he had done where his subject was a poor African-American family. After covering the family for 2 years, Kotlowitz began to feel a connection to them. A situation that had begun as strictly business had become blurred, not because of money, but because of human emotion. I think this is the aspect of checkbook journalism that intrigued me most. In examples like the above 2, it seems that the unethical issue was not that subjects had been compensated, but that a relationship had formed between the writer and their subject.
In an article for Propublica, Steve Mills writes about the difficulties journalists face when it comes to having professional relationships with sources, while also having to discuss deep and personal issues. I enjoyed reading both articles that I mention here because they take an issue that looks relatively black and white and exposes how easy it is to actually fall into. Checkbook journalism may be something that a journalist does not intentionally take part in, but may accidentally be implicated in when they become to close to sources. It is certainly an issue that journalists need to be weary of when they consider giving any kind of compensation to subjects, even when they do not intend for it to be used to improve their story or quality of information they are receiving. I felt inclined to brush this subject off because it felt simple to avoid, but I think doing that would be irresponsible. I would caution anyone going into journalism to think twice about this topic.
.jpeg)
