- The piece discusses the issue of corporate influence in the media
- The author highlights the importance of editorial independence in journalism
- The rise of native advertising, where ads are disguised as news stories, is discussed
- BuzzFeed is mentioned as an example of a media organization that relies heavily on native advertising
- The difficulty in distinguishing native advertising from actual news is highlighted
- The ethical concerns surrounding native advertising are discussed, including examples from Time Inc., The Atlantic, and The New York Times
- The potential damage to consumer trust in news organizations is mentioned
- The argument made by advertising executives that native advertising is just a form of storytelling is criticized.

- The speaker highlights the impact of advertising on trust in news sources
- The audience is reminded that the lack of financial support for news organizations contributes to their dependence on advertising
- The speaker suggests that if news is going to be corrupted by advertising, it should be allowed to infiltrate advertising in return
- An example is given of news about the Ebola outbreak being inserted into a Diet Coke advertisement

The line between editorial content and advertising in news media is blurrier and blurrier. That's not bullshit. It's repurposed bovine waste.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Let's talk about corporate influence in the media.

And before I do, I am very aware that we're extremely lucky here on HBO.

So if I want to say that, for instance, Cadbury Cream Eggs are filled with dolphin sperm, or...

Or that Old Navy clothing makes you look like a tacky murderer, or...

Or that Snickers only satisfies you for about 8 minutes, then makes you hate yourself for the rest of the day.

Well, because of HBO's business model, which no 1 has been able to adequately explain to me yet.

Most other outlets are locked in a constant battle for editorial independence, which is especially problematic when it comes to the news.

America has a proud tradition of a free and independent press, but it has always been a fight.

Back in the 50s, newscasters like NBC's John Cameron Swayze were introduced like this.

Sit back, light up a camel, and be an eyewitness to the happenings that made history in the last 24 hours.

The Camel News Caravan presents Today's News Today, produced for camel cigarettes by NBC.

Now, exceptions like that aside, it's generally agreed upon in journalism that there should be a wall separating the editorial and the business side of news.

It's sometimes referred to as the separation of church and state.

Although, I like to think of news and advertising as the separation of guacamole and Twizzlers.

Separately, they're good, but if you mix them together, somehow you make both of them really gross.

But recently, the integrity of news has become harder to protect, Particularly in print.

Print is still where most original journalism is done.

But since papers moved online, they have struggled financially.

People don't want to pay for it on the Internet, even though somewhere in a dimly lit room, Paul Krugman worked very hard to make it.

Online, print publications have struggled to attract advertisers, partly because traditional banner ads are so ineffective that 1 study found we only intentionally click on them less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the time.

Because did you know that if you ever actually click on a banner ad, you literally get taken to a page that reads, -"Hey, is everything okay?" -$HERE'S YOUR AD!

I'm presuming you passed out and hit your head on the keyboard.

The publishing industry, though, has responded to this crisis by finding a new way to appeal to advertisers.

Native advertising is basically saying to corporations that want to advertise, we will camouflage your ads to make them look like news stories.

Are you saying that to sum up your point on native advertising, or are you describing independent journalism?

Even if you've not heard the term native advertising before, you have probably been subjected to it by now.

It's when a piece of ostensibly normal content is stamped with tiny disclaimers like, this and this, and then contains messages that are often clear endorsements.

And, if you'll excuse me, I'll just take a break, from making this point by enjoying the refreshing taste of Mountain Dew Code Red.

And then it's at this point that you usually realize, oh, this isn't the thing that I was looking for.

You're just advertising the most disgusting f-ing drink ever manufactured.

Although, although, I will say, it does undeniably taste of red.

Native advertising, though, has been so lucrative for new media organizations, they've basically built their entire business model around it.

100% of our revenue comes from branded content.

So we have a lot of partners who are marketers, and major brands.

We work with 76 of the top 100 brands now.

That's the CEO of BuzzFeed, Jonah Peretti.

Successful, appealing, and yet somehow you want to punch it.

BuzzFeed has created masterpieces of native advertising, such as 10 life-changing ways to make your day more efficient, sponsored by GE, and 9 ways cleaning has become smarter, sponsored by Swiffer, and 11 sea creatures who deserve to die, sponsored by BP.

That last 1 is a joke, but it's not significantly different from the previous 2.

At full disclosure, HBO did pay for lists to promote this show around the time that we began.

Very cleverly realizing, we better promote this show, no 1 is going to give a shit about it.

But the success of this practice has clearly impressed old media, such as Time Inc., whose CEO recently created a native advertising team.

And he also doesn't see why that might be an issue.

As long as it's clearly marked, as long as the consumer knows the difference between what's editorial and what's native, I don't see any problem with it at all.

Because the consumer cannot tell the difference.

A recent study showed that less than half of visitors to a news site could distinguish native advertising from actual news.

And of course they can't, because it's supposed to blend in.

You're like a camouflage manufacturer saying, only an idiot could not tell the difference between that man and foliage.

I mean, look, the camouflage clearly states, not foliage on the collar.

And besides, I'm sure the Deer knows the difference between the 2 things.

--AUDIENCE LAUGHS- And if you are wondering how he reconciles this with the line between church and state, well, funny story.

Quite Frankly, I've changed church and state, as you know.

We took that away and we said, the editors are gonna now be working for the business side of the equation.

Because no longer are we asking ourselves the question, are we violating church and state, whatever that was.

That's like a surgeon saying, hey, I found this squishy thing in there, all bloody and gross, so I removed it, whatever that was.

The Atlantic published some native advertising for the Church of Scientology.

It's called Sponsored Content, and it's formatted to look like an actual article on their website, and the article lavishly praised Scientology's leader, David Miscavige.

Okay, now, for The Atlantic, that is ethically compromising.

But for Scientology, that is just plain stupid.

They clearly should have gone with a magazine with better access to their key demographics, such as Depressed Aspiring Actor Monthly.

Even the New York Times is now embracing this.

They had a recent feature on their website about women in prison, which looked like a serious piece of journalism, but was actually a paid post promoting season 2 of Orange Is the New Black.

And here's the thing, as far as native advertising goes, that's about as good as it gets.

The reporting is real, and the sponsored branding was minimal.

It's like hearing the 1 Katy Perry song that you like.

You think, sure, this is the best possible iteration of Katy Perry, but it still feels wrong to be listening to this.

-♪ You're gonna hear me roar ♪ -♪ You're gonna hear me roar -♪ Louder, louder than a lion -♪ You're gonna hear me roar It's a good song.

There's a 12-year-old girl inside me who is empowered by that song.

♪ The problem is, the problem is, the problem is sponsors aren't always going to be as benign as Orange is to the New Black.

Sometimes, it's going to be a company like Chevron, who recently sponsored a piece in The Times about how our energy needs are changing.

And spoiler alert, the notion that they're changing because we f-cked up the Earth thanks to companies like Chevron is not the conclusion of the article.

You might think all of this might seriously damage trust in a news organization.

But a Times advertising executive would like to vigorously refute that.

Let me start by vigorously refuting the notion that native advertising has to erode consumer trust or compromise the wall that exists between editorial and advertising.

Good native advertising is just not meant to be trickery.

It's meant to be publishers sharing its storytelling tools with a marketer.

It's not trickery, it's sharing storytelling tools.

And that's not bullshit, it's repurposed bovine waste.

In news, that is seemingly the model now.

Ads are baked into content like chocolate chips into a cookie.

Except it's actually more like raisins into a cookie because no 1 f-cking wants them there.

And the point is, think how much it would affect your trust in me as a source if you knew that that last anti-raisin cookie joke was actually brought to you by Chips Ahoy.

But before we demonize these organizations for selling out, It is worth remembering, this is all at least partially our fault.

A press cannot be free and independent if nobody is willing to pay for it.

In which case, I'd like to make a suggestion.

If our news is going to be corrupted, we should at least get something in return.

Every time a corporation sneaks advertising into our news and ruins it, our news should be allowed to sneak into their advertising.

And when you get thirsty, there's only 1 choice.

The recent Ebola outbreak has killed over 700 people in West Africa.

The World Health Organization says they don't yet have it under control and the situation threatens to become catastrophic.


Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Let's talk about corporate influence in the media. And before I do, I am very aware that we're extremely lucky here on HBO. We don't have advertisers. So if I want to say that, for instance, Cadbury Cream Eggs are filled with dolphin sperm, or... Or that Old Navy clothing makes you look like a tacky murderer, or...

Or that... Or that Snickers only satisfies you for about 8 minutes, then makes you hate yourself for the rest of the day. I can. I can do all of those things. And why?

Well, because of HBO's business model, which no 1 has been able to adequately explain to me yet. But... Most other outlets are locked in a constant battle for editorial independence, which is especially problematic when it comes to the news. America has a proud tradition of a free and independent press, but it has always been a fight. Back in the 50s, newscasters like NBC's John Cameron Swayze were introduced like this.

Speaker 1: Sit back, light up a camel, and be an eyewitness to the happenings that made history in the last 24 hours. The Camel News Caravan presents Today's News Today, produced for camel cigarettes by NBC.

Speaker 0: Top story this evening... Pfft! Ha-ha-ha! Americans' life expectancy is still 45. Pfft!

That's camel smooth. Now, exceptions like that aside, it's generally agreed upon in journalism that there should be a wall separating the editorial and the business side of news. It's sometimes referred to as the separation of church and state. Although, I like to think of news and advertising as the separation of guacamole and Twizzlers. Separately, they're good, but if you mix them together, somehow you make both of them really gross.

But recently, the integrity of news has become harder to protect, Particularly in print. Print is still where most original journalism is done. But since papers moved online, they have struggled financially. Mainly because news is like porn. People don't want to pay for it on the Internet, even though somewhere in a dimly lit room, Paul Krugman worked very hard to make it.

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Online, online. Ah, online. He worked hard. He put his heart and soul into that. Online, print publications have struggled to attract advertisers, partly because traditional banner ads are so ineffective that 1 study found we only intentionally click on them less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the time.

Which actually sounds about right. Because did you know that if you ever actually click on a banner ad, you literally get taken to a page that reads, -"Hey, is everything okay?" -$HERE'S YOUR AD! I'm presuming you passed out and hit your head on the keyboard. I'm calling an ambulance right now. -$HERE'S YOUR AD!

The... The publishing industry, though, has responded to this crisis by finding a new way to appeal to advertisers.

Speaker 2: Native advertising is basically saying to corporations that want to advertise, we will camouflage your ads to make them look like news stories. That's essentially it.

Speaker 0: That's essentially it? Are you saying that to sum up your point on native advertising, or are you describing independent journalism? That's essentially it. It's over. We're done here.

Even if you've not heard the term native advertising before, you have probably been subjected to it by now. It's when a piece of ostensibly normal content is stamped with tiny disclaimers like, this and this, and then contains messages that are often clear endorsements. And, if you'll excuse me, I'll just take a break, from making this point by enjoying the refreshing taste of Mountain Dew Code Red. Mmm. And then it's at this point that you usually realize, oh, this isn't the thing that I was looking for.

You're just advertising the most disgusting f-ing drink ever manufactured. Although, although, I will say, it does undeniably taste of red. -...uh... -...uh... -...uh...

-...uh... Native advertising, though, has been so lucrative for new media organizations, they've basically built their entire business model around it.

Speaker 3: 100% of our revenue comes from branded content. So we have a lot of partners who are marketers, and major brands. We work with 76 of the top 100 brands now.

Speaker 0: That's the CEO of BuzzFeed, Jonah Peretti. And his face is like BuzzFeed itself. Successful, appealing, and yet somehow you want to punch it. BuzzFeed has created... BuzzFeed has...

BuzzFeed has created masterpieces of native advertising, such as 10 life-changing ways to make your day more efficient, sponsored by GE, and 9 ways cleaning has become smarter, sponsored by Swiffer, and 11 sea creatures who deserve to die, sponsored by BP. Now, that... That... That last 1 is a joke, but it's not significantly different from the previous 2. At full disclosure, HBO did pay for lists to promote this show around the time that we began.

Very cleverly realizing, we better promote this show, no 1 is going to give a shit about it. But the success of this practice has clearly impressed old media, such as Time Inc., whose CEO recently created a native advertising team. And he also doesn't see why that might be an issue.

Speaker 4: As long as it's clearly marked, as long as the consumer knows the difference between what's editorial and what's native, I don't see any problem with it at all.

Speaker 0: Yeah, but it is a problem, though. Because the consumer cannot tell the difference. A recent study showed that less than half of visitors to a news site could distinguish native advertising from actual news. And of course they can't, because it's supposed to blend in. You're like a camouflage manufacturer saying, only an idiot could not tell the difference between that man and foliage.

I mean, look, the camouflage clearly states, not foliage on the collar. It's clear. And besides, I'm sure the Deer knows the difference between the 2 things. Deers are so smart. You have to respect deer.

--AUDIENCE LAUGHS- And if you are wondering how he reconciles this with the line between church and state, well, funny story.

Speaker 4: Quite Frankly, I've changed church and state, as you know. We took that away and we said, the editors are gonna now be working for the business side of the equation. But frankly, I think they're happier. They're more excited about it. Because no longer are we asking ourselves the question, are we violating church and state, whatever that was.

--What?

Speaker 0: --Whatever that was? That's like a surgeon saying, hey, I found this squishy thing in there, all bloody and gross, so I removed it, whatever that was. That was the heart. That was what made the whole thing work. You needed that.

And it's not just Time, Inc. That's doing this. The Atlantic published some native advertising for the Church of Scientology.

Speaker 5: The ad is the kind you've probably seen. It's called Sponsored Content, and it's formatted to look like an actual article on their website, and the article lavishly praised Scientology's leader, David Miscavige.

Speaker 0: Okay, now, for The Atlantic, that is ethically compromising. But for Scientology, that is just plain stupid. They clearly should have gone with a magazine with better access to their key demographics, such as Depressed Aspiring Actor Monthly. But... Even...

Even the New York Times is now embracing this. They had a recent feature on their website about women in prison, which looked like a serious piece of journalism, but was actually a paid post promoting season 2 of Orange Is the New Black. And here's the thing, as far as native advertising goes, that's about as good as it gets. The reporting is real, and the sponsored branding was minimal. But it is still an ad.

It's like hearing the 1 Katy Perry song that you like. You think, sure, this is the best possible iteration of Katy Perry, but it still feels wrong to be listening to this. -♪ You're gonna hear me roar ♪ -♪ You're gonna hear me roar -♪ Louder, louder than a lion -♪ You're gonna hear me roar It's a good song. It's a good song. There's a 12-year-old girl inside me who is empowered by that song.

-♪ ♪ -♪ -♪ 000000... ♪ -♪ 00000... ♪ The problem is, the problem is, the problem is sponsors aren't always going to be as benign as Orange is to the New Black. Sometimes, it's going to be a company like Chevron, who recently sponsored a piece in The Times about how our energy needs are changing. And spoiler alert, the notion that they're changing because we f-cked up the Earth thanks to companies like Chevron is not the conclusion of the article.

-... You might think all of this might seriously damage trust in a news organization. But a Times advertising executive would like to vigorously refute that.

Speaker 6: Let me start by vigorously refuting the notion that native advertising has to erode consumer trust or compromise the wall that exists between editorial and advertising. Good native advertising is just not meant to be trickery. It's meant to be publishers sharing its storytelling tools with a marketer.

Speaker 0: Exactly. Exactly. It's not trickery, it's sharing storytelling tools. And that's not bullshit, it's repurposed bovine waste. And...

And look, in news... In news, that is seemingly the model now. Ads are baked into content like chocolate chips into a cookie. Except it's actually more like raisins into a cookie because no 1 f-cking wants them there. And...

And... And the point is, think how much it would affect your trust in me as a source if you knew that that last anti-raisin cookie joke was actually brought to you by Chips Ahoy. But... But before we demonize these organizations for selling out, It is worth remembering, this is all at least partially our fault. A press cannot be free and independent if nobody is willing to pay for it.

And it seems nobody is going to. In which case, I'd like to make a suggestion. If our news is going to be corrupted, we should at least get something in return. Every time a corporation sneaks advertising into our news and ruins it, our news should be allowed to sneak into their advertising. -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪

Speaker 6: When you get hot, you get thirsty. And when you get thirsty, there's only 1 choice. Diet Coke.

Speaker 7: The recent Ebola outbreak has killed over 700 people in West Africa. The World Health Organization says they don't yet have it under control and the situation threatens to become catastrophic.

Speaker 0: Thank you.

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

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