Beginning, apparently, in 2013, Andrew Sullivan, editor of the now-dormant Dish blog, became aware of, and detested, a trend in online publications towards what was sometimes called sponsored content and other times native advertising; perhaps more euphemisms for companies hawking products in camouflage have appeared since. Andrew’s first entry is here; a collection of them, in reverse order, is here. From his first entry:
Did IBM also provide the art? Then I went to Quartz, the company’s new global business site. Two out of the first ten pieces I saw on the main-page last night were written by corporations, Chevron and Cadillac, presumably in collaboration with the Atlantic. (The Cadillac has now gone, replaced by another identical Chevron “piece”.) I’d like to know as a subscriber and former senior editor who exactly on staff helped write those ads, and how their writing careers are different than that of regular journalists. Jay Lauf, for whom I have immense respect, said this about the strategy of “native ads” – or what I prefer to call enhanced advertorial techniques:
“A lot of people worry about crossing editorial and advertising lines,
but I think it respects readers more. It’s saying, ‘You
know what you’re interested in.’ It’s more respectful of the reader that
way.”Read this piece and see if you agree.
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that readers do not expect great magazines to be artfully eliding the distinction between editorial and advertorial with boosterish ad campaigns from oil companies. Usually, those advertorials are in very separate sections in magazines – “Sponsored By The Government Of Dubai” or something – but integrating them in almost exactly the same type and in exactly the same format as journalism is not that.
I can understand companies sponsoring real journalism in inventive, dynamic, interactive ways. Magazines need advertizing to survive. I also understand how banner ads are useless for many big companies. I also realize that keeping the Atlantic alive requires herculean efforts in this tough climate. But please, please, please remember that the most important thing you have at the Atlantic is your core integrity as one of the great American magazines. I see no evidence the editorial staff has compromised that in any way and regard their writers and editors as role-models as well as journalists and friends. But there comes a time when the business side of a magazine has to be reminded that a magazine can very gradually lose its integrity in incremental, well-meant steps that nonetheless lead down a hill you do not want to descend. I know they are principled and honorable people there; and I know they understand this. But please know that this stuff makes an Atlantic reader grieve.
Now Skeptical Inquirer, in a print-only article in their May / June 2015 edition, brings to my attention the blunderings of the venerable Science magazine. David Gorski, MD, in “Science Sells Out: Advertising Traditional Chinese Medicine in Three Supplements,” discusses the myriad holes Science has dug for itself with the publishing of the first two supplements:
… the articles are formatted to appear not as ads but as regular scientific reports. … as not having “been peer-reviewed or assessed by the Editorial staff of the journal Science.” Rather, “all manuscripts have been critically evaluated by an international editorial team consisitng of experts in traditional medicine research selected by the project editor…
Dr. Gorski continues with identification of the various logical fallacies involved in the justifications given for publishing such a supplement, the lack of evidence for virtually any of the proposed modalities, etc. The editions were published in very last January and have attracted the malevolent attention of Orac @ ScienceBlogs.com, who rather gleefully skewers Science:
The introductory articles are painful to read, full of the obfuscations and justifications for the pseudoscience that makes up most of TCM, all wrapped up in calls for more tooth fairy science and completed with a bow of argumentum ad populum. Disappointingly, Margaret Chan, MD, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, begins this parade in an article entitled Supporting the integration and modernization of traditional medicine:
TM [traditional medicine] is often seen as more accessible, more affordable, and more acceptable to people and can therefore also represent a tool to help achieve universal health coverage. It is commonly used in large parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. For many millions of people, often living in rural areas within developing countries, herbal medicines, traditional treatments, and traditional practitioners are the main—and sometimes the only—source of health care. The affordability of most traditional medicines makes them all the more attractive at a time of soaring health care costs and widespread austerity.
Calling Dr. Chan. Calling Dr. Chan. The zombie corpse of Chairman Mao Zedong called. He wants his 1950s-era justification for promoting TCM and “integrating” it with “Western” medicine back, not to mention his “barefoot doctors.”
In a followup post, Orac suggests that the singular importance of evidence-based medicine may be on the ropes:
The scary thing is, the authors might actually be right. “Integrating” quackery with medicine does seem to be the future these days, and universities, the NCCIH, the WHO, Science, and the AAAS appear to be doing their very best to make that future a reality.
Back to Skeptical Inquirer, which published a companion to the Gorski piece: “WHO’s Strategy on Traditional and Complementary Medicine”, by Thomas P.C. Dorlo, Willem Betz, and Cees N.M. Renckens. In this scathing analysis of World Health Organization’s management of these types of medicine, they suggest this portion of the organization has been captured by the Chinese government, which derives quite the benefit from the export of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM):
Curiously, the focus of the WHO TM Strategy is neither toward rigid proof of efficacy of the mixed bag of therapies nor toward access to effective therapy but seems to be aimed at the financial and intellectual property (IP) aspects … For China, the Chinese TM therapies are a hugely important export product worth $3.14 billion in 2013.
And they go on to note that China appears to be pursuing the commercialization of a product which will not pass the usual medical high standards, and thus they are pursuing an alternative approach to inserting ineffective, dangerous therapies into the standard medical regimes. (Dangerous mostly in the sense that it may delay the administration of effective treatment, although some traditional therapies are indeed directly dangerous.)
Perhaps I’m just old, but this seems an almost suicidal strategy, whether it’s occurring at The Atlantic and other such publications, or at the serious science magazines. Readers read these publications for many reasons, but that, in my memory, doesn’t include camouflaged advertisements for products masquerading as serious articles. Look: at base level, every honest article is analysis, the unbiased examination of an issue, a product, a public issue, SOMETHING. It gives you what you hope are relevant facts, connects them together, looks for hidden connections, and delivers a conclusion where transparent reasoning is important. Publications like Science, Nature, The Atlantic, and thousands of other publications literally are risking their reputations for reputable articles when advertising masquerading as articles is printed in such a way as to mislead readers. When you get a rep for misleading readers, they’ll just walk away and find someone who still practices Old Fashioned Journalism. The importance of understanding this distinction, between doing good journalism and just turning into a poorly paid corporate whore, seems paramount to me.
The WHO issue, on the other hand, is a matter of international politics, and encompasses the idea that if you have more votes, you can ignore reality.
And both Skeptical Inquirer articles deserve a wider audience. Hopefully SI will publish them online soon.
