EYE ON ETHICS

Mr. Macale is assistant editor of the Philippine Journalism Review Reports.

_____________________________________________________________________

Media’s classic dilemma: how to balance the need to serve as the public watchdog by providing accurate, honest, complete, and crucial information, and the need to rely on advertisements to earn profits amid high production costs and dwindling circulation revenues.

What happens when the clear line between news and advertising begins to blur? –when news begins to sound like advertisements or commercial endorsements? Would readers, listeners, and viewers know the difference?

Take a Nov. 6 story of The Philippine Star about the opening of a new facility inside a shopping mall. The feature article, which appeared in the paper’s front page, was an enumeration of the amenities offered in the new facility—a convention center.

Apparently based on a press release, the report quoted the shopping mall president as saying that the new facility enhances management’s goal of making the mall the premiere tourist destination in the Philippines. It also discussed the management’s plan to go into servicing business process outsourcing companies.

After identifying the features of the convention center, the report took note of the mall’s other entertainment facilities.

Another advertorial— an advertisement that usually takes the form of news—appeared in the “Metro” section of Manila’s The Daily Tribune last Nov. 26 without making it clear that it was one.

“Mothers know best when it comes to raising children the right way” discussed how academic programs from a review center could be helpful to parents and their children. As examples, two mothers whose children were enrolled in the center affirmed the effectiveness of its programs.

The Tribune did not label the report as an “advertorial”—which had been a previous practice in the past to different such items from legitimate news. The advertorial, which also published the review center’s contact details in case readers were interested, even used the same font and type as news reports on the metro page.

The lifestyle section and supplementary magazines have also become favorite places for advertisements disguised as feature stories.

A story on the career of a young actress in The Manila Times last Oct. 25 turned out to be a pitch for the clothing line she endorses.

The actress had a ready spiel: “I like (name of clothing line) because the clothes allow me to be fun (sic) and flexible. (Name of clothing line) constantly reinvents and it doesn’t go with just one trend. And that’s exactly how I am as far as style and fashion are concerned.”

On the same page, another article featured the soon-to-be launched cologne supposedly inspired by another showbiz personality, an actor. The actor was quoted as saying that he was “thrilled” with the idea of having inspired a new brand of cologne.

Another example of the blurring between news and advertising in supplementary magazines was the Sept. 23 cover story of the Sunday Inquirer Magazine, a feature article about a celebrity mobile phone endorser.

Written by one of the magazine’s staff-writers, the story started with the celebrity endorser’s views on her life and career as a radio and video jock. But towards the end of the story, the article mentioned the name of the phone manufacturer endorsed by the celebrity and its latest models. One phone model has “proven to be perfect” for the endorser, according to the article. “My life now is built around music, so throughout the day I use the (phone model),” the Sunday Inquirer Magazine quoted the celebrity as saying.

The celebrity continued her sales pitch for the phone manufacturer throughout the rest of the story. Two photos of the celebrity holding the manufacturer’s two different phone models accompanied the main story. On the cover, the celebrity had a different photo. Like the two photos in the inside pages, however, her cover photo showed her still holding a phone from the same manufacturer. The cover was headlined: “Andi gets Ultra active with (name of phone manufacturer).”

More than a month later, it was the turn of a phone rival to grace the magazine’s pages. The Oct. 28 cover story featured four celebrities praising the latest personal digital assistant phone from a competing phone manufacturer. The four were shown holding their phones. One of the endorsers was featured in the cover, with the headline: “Creative Enterprise: Rajo Laurel and his (phone model).”

The story did not say if it was written by a magazine staff-writer. It had the same font, however, as the regular stories. It also had the same layout, although probably more photos (as there were four photos of the celebrity endorsers) than the rest of the articles.

Television news programs have been broadcasting advertorials for years. Express Balita, the early night news program of government-sequestered IBC-13 TV, covered the launch of new whiskey and cream-based liquor products last Oct. 5. Five days later, the same program covered another product launch—this time printers and imaging devices. Express Balita concluded the report by saying that with the new printers and scanner, one could now beat more deadlines.

It was not the first time that Express Balita had used its airtime to peddle products. Last Aug. 29, the program pitched new anti-sore throat products from a company. The report unabashedly enumerated the products and their uses: pastilles to relieve dry and itchy throats, and antiseptic mouthwash and lozenges with antibacterial and antifungal agents.

Where are media organizations drawing the line between balancing the need for advertisements and the need to maintain the integrity and objectivity of their reporting? Or are they drawing the line at all? Is it really a choice between “old-fashioned ethics” and “rationalized profit”?