Native advertising’s effectiveness lies in its ability to look like content produced by journalists. The potential for deceiving readers and proliferation of native advertising threaten journalism’s credibility along with its core boundary: the separation between editorial and advertising. For the press to function in a normative manner, as a watchdog, contributing to the public’s ability to self-govern, it simply cannot participate in deception. Therefore, 56 qualitative interviews were conducted with journalists, advertising, and public relations executives to examine the extent to which native advertising impedes on the social responsibility of the press. Perspectives revealed that all three professions agreed native advertising raises ethical concerns. Native advertising potentially deceives audiences who are unaware that native advertising is paid, persuasive content versus editorial, thus contributing to the diminishing credibility of journalism. Furthermore, if native advertising is done well, it is undetectable from traditional editorial content. Based on these findings, authors discuss how native advertising threatens several tenets of social responsibility theory.
AltschullJ. H. (1997). Boundaries of journalistic autonomy. In BerkowitzD. (Ed.), Social meanings of news: A text-reader (pp. 259-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AndersonH. A. (1977). An empirical investigation of what social responsibility theory means. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 54, 33-39.
3.
BagdikianB. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
4.
BakerC. E. (1994). Advertising and a democratic press. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BaldastyG. J. (1992). The commercialization of news in the nineteenth century. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
BaranS. J.DavisD. K. (2012). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
7.
CarlsonM. (2015a). Introduction: The many boundaries of journalism. In CarlsonM.LewisS. C. (Eds.), Boundaries of journalism: Professionalism, practices, and participation (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
CarlsonM. (2015b). When news sites go native: Redefining the advertising–editorial divide in response to native advertising. Journalism, 16, 849-865.
9.
ChristiansC. G.GlasserT. L.McQuailD.NordenstrengK.WhiteR. A. (2009). Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
10.
ChristiansC. G.NordenstrengK. (2004). Social responsibility worldwide. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 19, 3-28.
11.
CoddingtonM. (2015). The wall becomes a curtain: Revisiting journalism’s news–business boundary. In CarlsonM.LewisS. C. (Eds.), Boundaries of journalism: Professionalism, practices, and participation (pp. 67-82). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
CouldryN.TurowJ. (2014). Advertising, big data and the clearance of the public realm: Marketers’ new approaches to the content subsidy. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1710-1726.
13.
DavisJ. (2012). Advertising research theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
DeuzeM. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6, 442-464.
15.
DrumwrightM. E.MurphyP. E. (2004). How advertising practitioners view ethics: Moral muteness, moral myopia, and moral imagination. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 7-24.
16.
DrumwrightM. E.MurphyP. E. (2009). The current state of advertising ethics: Industry and academic perspectives. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 83-107.
HatziosA.LariscyR. W. (2008). Perceptions of utility and importance of international public relations education among educators and practitioners. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 63, 241-258.
LeeS.ChengI. (2012). Ethics management in public relations: Practitioner conceptualizations of ethical leadership, knowledge, training and compliance. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27, 80-96.
27.
LeviL. (2015). A “Faustian pact”? Native advertising and the future of the press. Arizona Law Review, 57, 647-711.
28.
LewisS. C. (2015). Epilogue: Studying the boundaries of journalism: Where do we go from here. In CarlsonM.LewisS. C. (Eds.), Boundaries of journalism: Professionalism, practices, and participation (pp. 218-228). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
McCrackenG. D. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
McManusJ. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
MeyerP. (2004). Saving journalism: How to nurse the good stuff until it pays. Columbia Journalism Review, November/December, 55-57.
32.
MooreJ. D. (2014). News goes native: An examination of online media’s disclosure practices for sponsored content. (MA), University of Nebraska.
SiebertF. S.PetersonT.SchrammW. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
42.
SingerJ. B. (2006). The socially responsible existentialist. Journalism Studies, 7, 2-18.
43.
WarrenC. A. B. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 83-101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
WeaverD.BeamR. A.BrownleeB. J.VoakesP.WilhoitG. C. (2007). The American journalist in the 21st century: US news people at the dawn of a new millennium. New York, NY: Routledge.
