An article, like a study, should not be influenced at all by advertisers for the publication in which it takes place.
I agree with this completely. This does not, however, preclude the editorial staff from advising the advertising department on what ads they should and should not be running.
Of course, however, this separation of editorial and advertising staff does not excuse the advertising staff from culpability for running dishonest ads, and that is the real problem here. If the Microsoft ads weren't false advertising, there would be nothing wrong with them being run alongside of Linux articles under the idealistic arrangement of keeping editorial and advertising content separate, but they are false advertising, so they should not be run at all by anyone, but particularly not by people who ought to know how deceptive they are.
This too is a valid point except that it depends on what you mean by "false advertising". An ad can be misleading and not run afoul of false advertising laws. If a publication believes that an ad is misleading, or disagrees with it for any other reason, they should be able to tell the advertising department, "Don't run that ad," regardless of whether the ad is legally "false advertising".
The point is that the advertising should support the publication so that the content can be published. It's when the content is only published to bring in the advertising revenue that the publication loses credibility. But, sadly, that is the state of journalism in the US: driven by advertising revenue rather than by reporting the facts.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Oh, the Irony...
Posted by: tsg on June 28, 2005 05:22 AMI agree with this completely. This does not, however, preclude the editorial staff from advising the advertising department on what ads they should and should not be running.
Of course, however, this separation of editorial and advertising staff does not excuse the advertising staff from culpability for running dishonest ads, and that is the real problem here. If the Microsoft ads weren't false advertising, there would be nothing wrong with them being run alongside of Linux articles under the idealistic arrangement of keeping editorial and advertising content separate, but they are false advertising, so they should not be run at all by anyone, but particularly not by people who ought to know how deceptive they are.
This too is a valid point except that it depends on what you mean by "false advertising". An ad can be misleading and not run afoul of false advertising laws. If a publication believes that an ad is misleading, or disagrees with it for any other reason, they should be able to tell the advertising department, "Don't run that ad," regardless of whether the ad is legally "false advertising".
The point is that the advertising should support the publication so that the content can be published. It's when the content is only published to bring in the advertising revenue that the publication loses credibility. But, sadly, that is the state of journalism in the US: driven by advertising revenue rather than by reporting the facts.
#