NY Magazine criticizes Politico for "native advertising" the same day it announces its own expanded program.
An article by Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine called "Politico Stonewalls Mike Allen Payola Scandal" criticizes Politico's Mike Allen for the practice of native advertising, which is essentially writing a paid advertisement and making it look like a regular story, a common practice in the world of web advertising. Chait begins by sensationalizing the piece, comparing the practice to radio scandals of the 1950s and 1960s where DJs took money to run particular songs over and over.
Chait describes a November Washington Post article where media reporter Eric Wemple outlines the native advertising in the Politico daily newsletter Playbook. After quoting an interview with Politico CEO Jim VandeHei, where he denied that "Playbook" has offered favorable coverage of sponsor organization, Chait writes:
VandeHei begins by calling the report "nonsense" without explicitly denying it. He asserts that a reporter "could find any pattern he wants to" in Allen's prodigious output. Really? Any pattern? A pattern of support for Russian strongmen? A pattern of furtive endorsements of anarcho-syndicalism? Even if this were true, it misses the point altogether. One might analyze the patterns of a particular disk jockey and discover all sorts of peculiar preferences, but the only pattern that really matters is a pattern of giving favorable coverage to interests that are paying him. VandeiHei does not deny that Allen has done that.
Now, one possible defense of Allen is that what appears to be simple payola is actually a more sociologically complex phenomenon. Allen, as Wemple reports, has personal friendships with many of his sponsors, uses them as sources, and generally shares their point of view on most issues even while failing to acknowledge he has a point of view at all. This is less a defense than a concession that Allen is so hopelessly embedded within the Establishment that he can't cover it in a remotely fair way.
There are two things going on here. On one hand, Chait is correct when he points out VanderHei isn't really denying anything. Based on the original article in the Washington Post, there is a strong possibility native advertising is going on at Politico, and if that is the case, the website is being dishonest by not identifying it as such.
On the other hand, Chait is clearly sensationalizing the story by calling it payola. The criminal scandal in the 50s and 60s had radio DJs playing a particular song repeatedly. Since radio advertising is based on time and there are only 24 finite hours a day, this was at the expense of others until that song became a hit. Nowhere in the original Washington Post piece is the Politico practice called "payola," because it simply isn't the correct use of the term.
Native advertising is a common practice in magazines and websites. For example, The Hill and BuzzFeed run native ads. It involves an article being added along with others, and although there are limits to how long an email newsletter can be for example, they usually do not run at the expense of other news. Additionally the dollars earned by payola were given to the DJ "under the table," whereas native adverting is arranged by the advertising sales department and goes to a site's bottom line.
While the Internet Advertising Bureau has not yet issued standards for native advertising, generally most agree that when these stories run it should be obvious to the site's readers via identification, topic, or writing style that it is a native piece.
Chait's piece is particularly unfair when one considers that the same day his story appeared, on a different part of the New York Magazine website editors published a piece announcing changes at the site including "continued expansion on native advertising"
Please note: Neither Truthrevolt.org or my personal site The Lid runs any native advertising.
