19 comments to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Native Advertising (HBO)

  • Techni Myoko  says:

    This is the video google sent me. Very relevant?

  • Kimberly Chapman  says:

    There are few things more important to our society than the existence of a
    free press. The events of the past few days in Ferguson, Missouri have been
    a powerful highlight of that: several days of violence looked like they
    were about to spiral into an all-out bloodbath, when some reporters finally
    managed to get the story out to people’s attention. Twenty-four hours
    later, the police force had been replaced with a much more professional
    one, and a massive crisis had been averted. It’s moments like these that
    you realize just how important having news *is.*

    (And by “news,” I don’t just mean companies with “news” in their name. I
    mean the entire system of people trying to report on what’s going on in the
    world and get this truth out there: journalism is not just the domain of a
    select few!)

    And the news has always been under threat, because news done right *is* a
    threat to the powerful: it exposes wrongs. In advertising-supported media
    (which is the large bulk of all media, since it turns out to be *really
    hard* to keep a non-ad-supported system in business) one of the biggest
    threats to news comes from the advertisers — for example, the business
    side of the office wanting to keep the editorial side from saying something
    that will upset a big client.

    Because of that, one of the most sacred traditions of news is the wall
    between editorial and business. These sides do not talk to one another.
    That wall is so important that it’s traditionally referred to as the
    “separation of Church and State” — in reference to one of the other most
    important walls that keeps our society functioning.

    (And this idea goes far beyond the traditional newsroom: at Google, for
    example, the same principle has always separated search and ads. And so
    we’ve gotten plenty of experience with all of the challenges that
    maintaining such a wall entails — it’s never simple, but it’s critically
    important!)

    Recently, an old idea has started to come back in popularity, called
    “native advertising” or “sponsored content” — that is, ads designed to
    look (with the publisher’s assistance!) like news stories. You might expect
    it from places like BuzzFeed, but stalwarts of journalism like Time and the
    New York Times are getting in on the game, too. And this is a problem.

    Now enough reading my lectures; go watch John Oliver, he explains it better
    than I do.?

  • Martha Doorman  says:

    But mountain dew code red is great, I couldn’t think of anything else to
    drink when I’m eating my zesty Doritos.?

  • gribble of the sand  says:

    Praise the internet lords for Adblock ?

  • Arch  says:

    Seriously the idea of news-inspired advertisement isn’t that bad I think:
    it adds something interesting to an otherwise bland creation that we know
    all too well. Think about it, when was the last time an advertisement had
    really caught your attention? If they add a brief news-injection in an
    advertisement it gives them credibility plus no ad could be the same for
    long, thus keeping them fresh and interesting ?

  • Prince Avery  says:

    WTF’s up with all the native advertising in YOUR Show JOHN??? Katey perry,
    mt dew red, c’mon man?

  • Lucius Nite  says:

    There are few things more important to our society than the existence of a
    free press. The events of the past few days in Ferguson, Missouri have been
    a powerful highlight of that: several days of violence looked like they
    were about to spiral into an all-out bloodbath, when some reporters finally
    managed to get the story out to people’s attention. Twenty-four hours
    later, the police force had been replaced with a much more professional
    one, and a massive crisis had been averted. It’s moments like these that
    you realize just how important having news *is.*

    (And by “news,” I don’t just mean companies with “news” in their name. I
    mean the entire system of people trying to report on what’s going on in the
    world and get this truth out there: journalism is not just the domain of a
    select few!)

    And the news has always been under threat, because news done right *is* a
    threat to the powerful: it exposes wrongs. In advertising-supported media
    (which is the large bulk of all media, since it turns out to be *really
    hard* to keep a non-ad-supported system in business) one of the biggest
    threats to news comes from the advertisers — for example, the business
    side of the office wanting to keep the editorial side from saying something
    that will upset a big client.

    Because of that, one of the most sacred traditions of news is the wall
    between editorial and business. These sides do not talk to one another.
    That wall is so important that it’s traditionally referred to as the
    “separation of Church and State” — in reference to one of the other most
    important walls that keeps our society functioning.

    (And this idea goes far beyond the traditional newsroom: at Google, for
    example, the same principle has always separated search and ads. And so
    we’ve gotten plenty of experience with all of the challenges that
    maintaining such a wall entails — it’s never simple, but it’s critically
    important!)

    Recently, an old idea has started to come back in popularity, called
    “native advertising” or “sponsored content” — that is, ads designed to
    look (with the publisher’s assistance!) like news stories. You might expect
    it from places like BuzzFeed, but stalwarts of journalism like Time and the
    New York Times are getting in on the game, too. And this is a problem.

    Now enough reading my lectures; go watch John Oliver, he explains it better
    than I do.?

  • Alessandro Mencarini  says:

    Well, apparently it’s not just Italy where you turn to comedians to be
    informed. US are following very close on this trend.?

  • Andrea Rivis  says:

    *Native Advertising*
    “Recently the integrity of news has became harder to protect, particularly
    in print. Print is still were the most original journalism is done but
    since papers moved on line they have struggled financially. Mainly because
    news is like porn: people don’t wont to pay for it on the Internet even
    though somewhere in a dimly lit room Paul Krugman worked very hard to make
    it.”?

  • Arnie Kuenn  says:

    This is seriously good for all of us in the advertising and marketing
    space. #nativeadvertising ?

  • Phil Lewis  says:

    People have a hard enough time distinguishing between satirical news like
    The Onion and real news. How are they supposed to tell the difference
    between a legitimate news article and one designed to advertise a product??

  • Andreas Quinkert  says:

    Unbedingt gucken: Comedian John Oliver über #NativeAdvertising. Erhellend
    und zum Brüllen. Vor allem der Vorschlag am Ende hat es in sich! ?

  • CumpetMuffin  says:

    I was sent here by a sweaty bloke who lives in Canada!?

  • CoolGaminginc  says:

    John is funny, but does he always make fun of Americans? ?

  • Sohail Mirza  says:

    *John Oliver on Native Advertising*

    I found this John Oliver bit rather disturbing. It covers the relatively
    recent (?) phenomenon of “Native Advertising”, that is to say,
    advertising/marketing that presents itself in the guise of editorial
    content. On some sites the native advertising can easily be mistaken for
    editorial content, which means advertisers and marketers now have equal
    footing with actual editorial content or news.

    While John Oliver’s take on it is hilarious, it’s also eye opening as I
    wasn’t aware of this practice prior to seeing this piece.

    Ultimately he’s right though. In order to keep editorial content free of
    corporate influence, it will require people to pay for that editorial
    content. I believe I’ve suddenly gained a new appreciation for traditional
    news outlets hiding their content behind paywalls.?

  • Michael A. Phillips  says:

    All his work is wonderful! I suspect that the truth in advertising doesn’t
    hold well enough truth to be news!?

  • Hadley Pleasanton  says:

    Bear in mind, this fuckstick was weaned on the state-run BBC from the time
    he was born. Now, apparently, he’s lobbying to bring that type of cultural
    Marxist nightmare to the US. Up yours, you tea-swilling limey interloper.
    :)?

  • Korinne M Jackman  says:

    There are few things more important to our society than the existence of a
    free press. The events of the past few days in Ferguson, Missouri have been
    a powerful highlight of that: several days of violence looked like they
    were about to spiral into an all-out bloodbath, when some reporters finally
    managed to get the story out to people’s attention. Twenty-four hours
    later, the police force had been replaced with a much more professional
    one, and a massive crisis had been averted. It’s moments like these that
    you realize just how important having news *is.*

    (And by “news,” I don’t just mean companies with “news” in their name. I
    mean the entire system of people trying to report on what’s going on in the
    world and get this truth out there: journalism is not just the domain of a
    select few!)

    And the news has always been under threat, because news done right *is* a
    threat to the powerful: it exposes wrongs. In advertising-supported media
    (which is the large bulk of all media, since it turns out to be *really
    hard* to keep a non-ad-supported system in business) one of the biggest
    threats to news comes from the advertisers — for example, the business
    side of the office wanting to keep the editorial side from saying something
    that will upset a big client.

    Because of that, one of the most sacred traditions of news is the wall
    between editorial and business. These sides do not talk to one another.
    That wall is so important that it’s traditionally referred to as the
    “separation of Church and State” — in reference to one of the other most
    important walls that keeps our society functioning.

    (And this idea goes far beyond the traditional newsroom: at Google, for
    example, the same principle has always separated search and ads. And so
    we’ve gotten plenty of experience with all of the challenges that
    maintaining such a wall entails — it’s never simple, but it’s critically
    important!)

    Recently, an old idea has started to come back in popularity, called
    “native advertising” or “sponsored content” — that is, ads designed to
    look (with the publisher’s assistance!) like news stories. You might expect
    it from places like BuzzFeed, but stalwarts of journalism like Time and the
    New York Times are getting in on the game, too. And this is a problem.

    Now enough reading my lectures; go watch John Oliver, he explains it better
    than I do.?

  • kaesi111  says:

    What did anyone expect too happen in kapitalism ? Of cource something like
    this had too happen when the news go online ? But on the other hand
    communism or any other economical system doesnt work as well as it should.
    So yeah ??

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>