f the controversy would be accepted. In the end, the press becomes not just subtly, but blatantly, biased. The Times spokesman, William Adler, simply countered that the Ad Department was neutral to the issues at hand.
Still, most agree that readers should know exactly what it is that they are consuming, whether it be the view of the editorial staff, the view of the advertiser or the view that some advertiser has paid a person or a publication to express for them.
A related -- but even trickier -- problem is advertorials in broadcasting. Media watchdogs and critics complained loudly this summer when, in Australia, a prominent radio broadcaster received payment for endorsing the Australian Bankers' Association, an organization of which he was known to be critical. The inherent difficulty was whether his audience could differentiate between a view that the broadcaster was paid to express and a view he honestly held himself. Although the difference between news, "pure" advertising and advertorials may be more clear-cut in print, the primary issu
...