Critical political economy in practice: the case of an advertising/editorial conflict at Brainstorm

摘要

Critical political economists argue that media in a democratic society are notudinherently free, as they rely on advertisers for revenue, and their editorial contentudcan be influenced by commercial considerations. However, liberal pluralistudtheorists argue that journalists’ and editors’ normative attachment toudindependence and professionalism provide a counterbalance to advertisers’udwants. In South Africa, where commercial pressures have been exacerbated inudincreased competition for adspend, local publications have sought to createudalternative revenue streams, such as supplements specifically targeted atudadvertisers. This research report examines the issues raised by such products byudexamining a conflict at the ICT publication Brainstorm over one of itsudsupplements. The study looks at an incident of an advertiser demanding changesudto editorial content and reactions to the demands within the media organisation,udconsidering individual journalists’ reactions and how the issue played out inudseveral different departments in the publishing house. The research found thatudcompanies within the ICT sector, who are often also advertisers, routinely try toudhave editorial copy changed to their advantage, and that these companies do notudhave a clear understanding of the media industry and its processes. Journalistsudresist these changes, but the research found that supplements are not viewed asudseriously by journalists as other types of editorial content, because theudsupplements are financed by advertisers. The research demonstrates that suchudsupplements operate in a grey area because they blur the boundaries betweenudadvertising and editorial. As such, journalists and editors find it harder to defendudtheir professional independence in producing the content. The fuzziness aboutudwhether the supplements are advertorial or editorial casts doubt on the credibilityudof such products.