News articles changed to avoid offending Apple

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by the8thark, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. the8thark macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #1
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/med...ed-Iraq-article-to-avoid-offending-Apple.html

    The TLDR of the article is:

    The media is rather biased at times. But having large advertisers changing what the media write? That's a pretty scary thought.
     
  2. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #2
  3. mojolicious macrumors 68000

    mojolicious

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Location:
    Sarf London
    #3
    That's fair enough, I reckon. I've no idea what 'wraparound advertising' is in the context of a website, but I think if a company are spending big then it's perfectly entitled to request that its ads aren't placed next to stories about pædophile rings etc etc (although personally I can't see the problem; let's face it, 90% of the big news stories with the most views are bad news stories). As the Guardian spokesman is quoted as saying: "Apple, in common with other advertisers, sometimes choose to make stipulations about the type of content their ads appear around. If the content on the home page does not meet stipulations, the ad would be removed."

    This is where it gets a bit weird. If the headline was Iraq Insurgents Execute Six Schoolgirls Using iPhone App then I can understand why Apple might be offended, but I'm assuming that this wasn't the headline.

    I can't actually think of the headline that would cause the website's staff to worry about causing offence to Apple; it's even harder to imagine that the entire story was pulled because of some Apple-related concern.

    Given that the Telegraph doesn't state what the story/headline is, I reckon this is a load of old bollocks and an attempt to divert attention from the Telegraph's own recent negative publicity following Peter Oborne's article on the paper's editorial/commercial conflicts (edit: as OllyW says).

    The Go Ultra Low Group 'unmarked advertorials' looks to be the bigger story at first glance.
     

Share This Page