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.
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.