The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

BROOM: Not worth the price

If The Cavalier Daily publishes sponsored content, it must be careful of how it presents it

Last semester I focused a lot on what was going on in The Cavalier Daily week to week. At first I was getting my bearings in reading every part of the paper and website every day. Then, because there was some interesting back and forth with readers and because I had been focusing a lot on what needed to be changed or improved, I felt like I should point out the really good work being done. Then the academic year was over and that was that.

This semester I told myself I was going to enlarge my aperture and try to think and write more about The Cavalier Daily in the larger context of collegiate media and media generally. And I will do just that. I think that’s going to have to wait for next week, though.

We’ve only been back for the new school year a short time, but already The Cavalier Daily is jam-packed each day with all manner of articles, op-eds and other information. I find myself wondering, though, about a few of the articles. One, “Charlottesville welcomes Capital Teas,” published online on August 24 and written by Brittany Hsieh, reads like a press release from the store itself. The only quotations are from one of the co-owners of the store. Further, it touts a store opening a fair distance from Grounds and one that students without a car will have a hard time getting to. While broader local coverage would be great, especially for non-student, local readers of The Cavalier Daily, this article leaves me wondering how such topics are selected. The grand opening of the store even appeared in The Cavalier Daily events calendar this past Saturday while the University home football game was left off of that calendar. As I was wondering how topics for articles like this are selected, I read Dani Bernstein’s op-ed of August 25, “Penny for your words” and was momentarily horrified that the Capital Teas article might have been sponsored content. As I read both pieces more carefully I decided that, no, it’s not sponsored content, but it may as well have been. And that’s a problem.

There are going to be allegations of bias made against any newspaper or information outlet. Many of those allegations will be a result of a misunderstanding of bias on the part of the alleger. And especially where opinion comes in, bias is not really relevant. But in news, whether in the News section or elsewhere, as with the Capital Teas article, the appearance of bias or anything else that compromises the integrity of the paper is hugely problematic. How can a paper hold the line on the fact of their integrity and honesty if there is reason to believe they might be selling access to articles?

To be clear; I don’t think that the Capital Teas article was sponsored. It wasn’t labeled anywhere as such, but it looks for all the world like it could be sponsored. I don’t think such articles serve The Cavalier Daily well and I don’t believe the information they offer to readers is worth risking the integrity of the entire paper. Bernstein laid out the argument against sponsored content in her column and I urge you to click through and read it. The bottom line is, if that’s what the content would look like (and I think it would) it would hurt the paper such that the income from selling it might be irrelevant, as the readership would simply dwindle away.

Christopher Broom is the public editor for The Cavalier Daily’s. He can be reached at publiceditor@cavalierdaily.com or on Twitter at @cdpubliceditor.

Comments

Latest Podcast

Today, we sit down with both the president and treasurer of the Virginia women's club basketball team to discuss everything from making free throws to recent increased viewership in women's basketball.