It's interesting that this is in the Fashion section. I think the reason is that it's a PR placement, and the Fashion section is much easier to score those in.
"... I think the reason is that it's a PR placement, and the Fashion section ..."
I know it's (more than likely) a product placement for this reason alone. I've noticed a nasty habit the NYT has of purposefully stuffing their non-mainstream news feeds with ads posing as news.
- First example: Google article in employment where a google employee talks about google work practices. [0]
- Second example: Article in Blog section by Brad Stone on companies blocking social software. [1]
As a big sports fan, I see where the almost exclusive role of the paper and the beat reporter is to help sell tickets. And the sports coverage helps sell newspapers. It's a symbiotic relationship,
Why should we expect any other section to be different? Indeed, where a paper only tends to cover certain sport teams, at least in other sections, the products and companies change.
If I'm a reporter and I get an interesting PR package, why shouldn't I run with it? Why is it a "nasty" habit?
Besides, a newspaper isn't a purveyor of facts or knowledge, - it's just full of "stories" that are sometimes interesting. What more could you ask from a free content provider?
"... If I'm a reporter and I get an interesting PR package, why shouldn't I run with it? Why is it a "nasty" habit? ..."
Because the mixing of news with paid placement is not "clearly" disclosed.
So readers of such articles are not aware that "Journalists" are really being paid to place product, posing as editorial. It's not about news or stories. It's about disclosure, ethics and giving all the information, not one sides view of what they want you to hear.
It's "grubby" because the articles if clearly marked, could in all likelihood be ignored. Just like advertisements they aim to replace.
I think you're taking things to their logical extreme. An article may be inspired, and even contain, PR yet still be interesting to the readership. Furthermore, many, many journalists are paid to draw attention to 'products" - sport reporters, arts critics, business and technology analysts, etc. Does Pogue or Mossberg have to disclose in every article that they got the product for free, and with info from the company, to test out? The important criteria for a conflict of interest is whether the journalist is paid by the "source". If not, I see no problem with it. Let the editors decide if the journalist was being lazy.
And those "stories" aren't editorials. There's a specific page for that. Even then, many editorials are written by folks promoting a recent or upcoming book.
Yup, you got me. I read the Times every morning because I think it's a decent enough representative of news and with less of these things than their peers. Whether those articles contain "subs" I'm not too concerned about. I seldom buy commercial goods and a newspaper will rarely influence my choice. If I think the stories (and that's all they are to me) are interesting to folks here, I post them.
By the way, do you know that universities send out press releases to announce scientific findings? When the article appears in the Science section, do you think that's "nasty" and needs to be disclosed? It doesn't involve a concrete product, but it is an attempt to get the university name in the paper.
I guess my point is: I think every story in a paper has some angle to it. In the Times, the stories are usually interesting and well-written and fact-checked. But ultimately, I have to make up my own mind about what's worth knowing.
