Suffering from limp, lifeless journalism?

There's often been a fine line between editorial and advertorial, especially when it comes to regional journalism, which is often dependent on advertising for its survival. But the so-called quality newspapers can sometimes be guilty of masquerading advertising content as journalism.

The Sunday Times' Style section this week (23 May, pp 14-19) included a long interview with Cheryl Cole, written by journalist Edwina Ings-Chambers.

The warning signs should have been obvious from the headline - "She's Worth It". The headline was paraphrasing the slogan of L'Oreal, who just happen to employ Cheryl Cole as the face (sic) of one of their brands of hairspray.

Within this interview - including the picture credits - were seven mentions of L'Oreal and ten mentions of L'Oreal products. L'Oreal products were given equal billing to the clothes used in the photographs.

The frequent references to L'Oreal were sometimes incongruous and, frankly, bizarre. Take this sentence:

"Cheryl barely reads any press, so she can't say if she was surprised by...the furore over her having hair extensions and yet being the face of L'Oreal Elvive Full Restore 5 Replenishing Shampoo."

The mention of the "L'Oreal PR [who] doesn't even have to make the coffee run..." sheds light on these odd interpolations.

The interview was presumably set up between the journalist and L'Oreal - the former given access to the celeb on condition that the company gets a plug or ten.

But this compromises journalistic integrity, surely? Instead of an interview that offers a balanced view on Cheryl Cole, we get a bland, admiring, product-plugging advertorial.

Cheryl's old assault charge is briefly mentioned, but balanced by the comment that she is an "everyone-deserves-a-second-chance kind of a person" - whatever that means.

It's clear that L'Oreal got a good deal here. They got a piece regularly name-checking them, photos featuring (and crediting) their products, and a plug for Cheryl's upcoming campaigns with them.

They also paid for a full-page advert within the interview (this time featuring one of their other "stars", Eva Longoria), which adds to the overall advertorial tone of the feature.

In return, The Sunday Times gets a feature with one of the most popular stars of today, and a nice cover picture.

But what does the reader get? Short-changed, maybe.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

Comments

[Catherine Goddard]

Thanks for pointing out the mediocrity of a lot of celebrity journalism today. It seems as if some journalists/Editors have forgotten the primary goal of journalism: to ask questions, provoke, reveal something of genuine public interest. Instead, they have become swallowers of agent-led demands... celebrity sycophants, toe-ers of the line. When the "line" is demanded by brands stumping up the cash for another cog in the PR machine, we end up with this sort of banale, subservient journalism. Give any journalist worth their salt an interview with Cheryl Cole and questions ought to at least teeter on the more provocative side of the tracks: after all, why should celebs be allowed to keep their less savioury nuggets for the inevitable stream of autobiographies... oh yeah, because it brings them the big bucks, just like those six figure sponsorship deals.

[Bredbaand]

Well, if I interviewed Cheryl Cole I'm pretty sure I'd be too busy trying to figure out a way to ask her out rather than focusing on the interview itself ;) Maybe that's what's wrong with journalism today