I'd hate to be on any jury. But especially a rape one. Despite too many CSI episodes it would be impossible to convict, especially when it's down to the word of the two sole witnesses.
This, is just slightly to do with that. It's about the dilemma one faces as a medium with a model based on ad revenue, and allied influences, as discussed in other blogs today (sponsorship, funding, etc). You have to be careful that what you say is not countered too much (if at all), but what's happening around you, and hence associated with you.
On Junkk.com I fully intend (and need) to have ads to help me pay my way. And logic dictates the ads on certain sections are relevant to them.
I'd like to think that I can mange to make sure that they are just ads, that they conform to all necessary ethical and ASA-required standards (if you look at their weekly hit-list, that's a big 'if'), and the reader treats them and the messages as such.
I was pondering this as I was reading a green-related piece in the Guardian today.
I was alse attracted to the button (above right), which got me to the page (above left), which in turn led me further down a pretty exclusive trail on the green and wonderful world of British Gas.
Now I don't know, but I am unsure as to their relative merits in the great green firmament, especially of energy production/supply (our biggest national CO2 emitter, no?), but I just felt the way all this was set up gave rather to much credence to what is in fact a naked corporate pitch.
I have no problem with sponsorship, but I do think it is incumbent upon the medium to ensure that the advertiser does not end up so dominating the screen that any chance of objectivity in message or editorial is tainted.
No comments:
Post a Comment