By David Sirota
The term “native advertising” may be new, but the principles of deception and camouflage that define it are not.
The Federal Trade Commission used to call this kind of thing “deceptive advertising” and punish the purveyors of it. Some countries called it “subliminal advertising” and outright banned it. Of late in the United States, though, it has become a seemingly new $2.4 billion business. But again, it has been around for a long time – most prominently in the public policy arena, where special interest content and ideological agitprop is routinely disguised as nonpartisan empiricism and dispassionate news.
Related Reading:
Getting Clarity on Pension Numbers in The New York Times
Our Next Big Crisis Will be a Retirement Crisis
