11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_5#sch1

It’s not clear this would count as paying for the promotion, and it might be hard to prove that it amounts to advertising, but other than those hurdles it is a strict liability criminal offence to use an unfair practice.

Let’s give the Sun the benefit of the doubt (not that they need it) for a moment: perhaps they aren’t consciously aware of any overt bias in their spiralling self-perpetuation of their own interests at the expense of others – so why would any readers even care about how the influence of any editorialising may have the effect of manipulating them to their own detriment?

Take football transfer non-stories, for example – how many of these are planted by agents to manipulate the market for primarily commercial ends? Does the on-off saga of a Gareth Barry or Cristiano Ronaldo make much material difference to the sporting output of any of those teams – or is the volume of hype necessary to build a market audience for the mother-company’s other products? Does the average season-ticket holding Sun reader enjoy paying extortionate above-inflationary annual increases in order to pay for the continued competitiveness of their club, are changes in quality noticable?

Or: does David Beckham retain his place in the England football team on merit, or because the FA can’t sell out stadiums without him, the Sun sells more copies when he is on the back pages and bothe recieve higher levels of sponsorship because his visibility makes him more marketable?

I’m pretty sure most Sun-readers have an opinion on these subjects of debate and that they know they can’t take anything written in their tabloid-of-choice as gospel, but there are always the others who benefit from exposure to contrasting viewpoints when making their own minds up.

It is similarly advisable to take stock market gossip in broadsheets with a large pinch of salt (if we’re being scrupulously fair we ought to watch for unattribured pro-Murdoch company bias in the WSJ for example).

Whatever you may think about whether facebook is a particular victim of rampant commercial bias, it helps nobody to take anything for granted when considering the politics of the matter.

the Private Eye readership may be tiny in your view but I am sure it is far more than this blog.

But the crossover is likely to be small—and given the bandwidth issues the site sometimes faces, I suspect the readership of this site is more than you think. Regardless…

I wonder how many Sun readers are intelligent enough to read this forum ?

Irrelevent. What matters is that activists like, for example, me, faced with a “isn’t Facebook that evil site that supports knifing” comment from a potential voter can turn around armed with the facts. And also that a large number of senior journalists and editors/producers are known to read this site, thus while the readership might be small, the impact is, like Private Eye, bigger than it might be.

t is valid to call into question this piece without being against Mark’s other blogs

Mark posts a variety of different posts on a variety of subject on this and other blogs (a blog is the site, not an individual post). They appeal to a wide variety of different readers and suit many different purposes.

I have stated, specifically, why this specific bit of research was useful to me, as an activist, within the last 48 hours. Thus the post has been useful and is relevent—I’d prefer to see this sort of thing than the opposition watch stuff that others both enjoy and find useful. What matters isn’t what gets posted, but how much in proportion gets posted. There are a large number of other posts on the frontpage, so we’re good.

If the whole of the frontpage was facebook and web campaigning geekery, then I think you’d have a stronger point, as it is I don’t genuinely understand your objection to the post being here—not to your taste, perhaps, but definitely on topic given the amount of time Nick Clegg and others are putting into various types of online campaigning, including both MySpace and FaceBook.

The issue for News Int’l as I see it is denigrating a rival in a similar industry has a knock on effect on ones own product.

I do not think people here are “Anti-pack” as is claimed, but it is valid to call into question this piece without being against Mark’s other blogs. We are about free speech after all.

The problem with Murdoch’s press is that it is aless about telling us the news, more about making him money, and anyone who gails Sky or Fox news ought to realise that.

The only reason Sky news is not as biased as Fox is because it has a rival in BBC News.

Sure, the post’s revelations may not be ‘shocking’ but it is interesting to see more evidence, produced concisely, of Murdoch influence over his media outlets.

A lot of people, some of whom work in Fleet Street, still refuse to accept that Murdoch influences the sentiments expressed in his media at all.

Yes, I knew that the Sun plugs MySpace and denigrates its rival due to ownership, but a) I don’t have access to all the knowledge and b) this is clear evidence of bias (of course the headline shanking story in and of itself was pathetic and easily knocked down).

A lot of our MPs and activists have invested a lot of time into using social networking and social media sites such as Facebook, when elements of the media run scare stories it can make us look bad by association—as Jo has said the media overreaction to minor stuff on Fb combined with the authorities being stupid over some stuff is worrying and I find it very problematic.

That Torbay police were trying to shut down the whole of Torbay’s evening entertainment sector over a single event suggested in the area in July was ludicrous—tourist area tries to ban fun wouldn’ve been my headline as a journalist, all because the internet highlights that there are some stupid people out there.

Good story Mark, well researched, nice comparison. Spanny, that Private eye (readership: tiny, including me) runs this sort of story doesn’t mean that the average Sun reading parent is aware of the bias. Thus it’s worthy of highlighting when there’s a definite bias issue, and it does effect our campaigns and reputation.

Of course he has the news edited to suit his agenda. Look at the News Int’l line on China for instance.

I am surprised that anyone, but ANYONE, would be surprised at this.

As Blogs go this was weak (which was surprising as I like your blogs usually). What is your next stunning revelation, Bears **** in the woods.

As to whether the overall point is a story? Well, I think the fact that quite a few others have reported invidivual incidents previously suggests so, and not surprisingly given that we’re talking about whether a newspaper owner is having the news edited (whether via direct orders, or indirectly via the company culture) to suit his other commercial interests.

To give an analogy: if Channel 4 were to decide that it would only run movie reviews for films in which it had a financial interest, would that be ok and not worthy of comment? And what if instead, they decided they would run movie reviews of other films, but always said those films were awful? Would that be ok and not worthy of comment? I think you can see where this goes…

Facebook is getting such an horrendous press in this country it’s quite shocking. So many good things come out of it and yet you wouldn’t think so from the news. These groups don’t often get mentioned.

Ultimately there reaches a tipping point for any private media outlet where the reputation it has built reflects upon whether it is damaging to wider society and thence its own ability to survive in a commercial environment. In return this plays into BBC license fee debates and how to manage and maintain balance of output in the media.

An interesting comparison is how many Iranian newspapers require official backing to survive financially because they regularly step over the line which divides news from propaganda and discourage the general sales which would enable them to exist independently and provide reliable, trustworthy and useful information to their readership.

So it is a sensitive area of political concern which can become highly controversial, especially if whispers of mooted reforms of the BBC charter or libel and copyright laws come closer to fruition – which is inevitably the case in the run-up to every general election as sides are taken by those who wish to invest in trying to influence the debate.