Corporate cheerleaders<\/h3>\n
The idea is the brainchild of George Osborne, the paper\u2019s editor. It is perhaps not surprising that it has been left to Osborne to clear the path for newspapers to become more overt cheerleaders for major corporations.<\/p>\n
For six years prior to 2016, he was chancellor of the exchequer (Britain’s finance minister) for Conservative governments overseeing strict economic austerity, a policy designed to bleed the British public of money that was used instead to revive the private banking sector and major corporations.<\/p>\n
Additionally, Osborne has his finger deep in various lucrative corporate pies. In a blatant conflict of interest since he became the Standard’s editor last year \u2013 and one that predates his offer to sell favourable coverage to these six corporations \u2013 he has a \u00a3650,000 contract to work one day a week for BlackRock, the world\u2019s largest fund manager.<\/p>\n
BlackRock, meanwhile, has a \u00a3500 million stake in Uber \u2013 the taxi-app company that is among the corporations that signed up to Osborne\u2019s deal. Uber desperately needs an image makeover as it fights through the courts to keep its licence to operate in London.<\/p>\n
What is good for big business is very good for George Osborne\u2019s bank balance. Which is why Osborne\u2019s commitment to real journalism comes a far second to his commitment to his pals in the City.<\/p>\n
‘Public relations death’<\/h3>\n
Nonetheless, it would be foolish to imagine that this is really a battle between Osborne\u2019s slash-and-burn economics and journalistic ethics.<\/p>\n
First, we should remember that all corporate media have been blurring the line between editorial and advertising over the past two or three decades. In the past they called it \u201csponsored content\u201d and advertorials. More recently it has been transformed into \u201cnative advertising\u201d \u2013 a euphemism for media outlets prostituting themselves to large corporations. Osborne\u2019s crime is simply that he is doing it more brashly and on a larger scale than his competitors.<\/p>\n
Second, a senior executive in Starbucks, one of the corporations Osborne approached, says the firm rejected the deal for the following reason: \u201cBuying positive news coverage is PR death\u2026 something you might do in Saudi Arabia, but not here. This wasn\u2019t right for us.\u201d<\/p>\n
As the statement implies, Starbucks are not averse to manipulating public perception of their activities to counter a poor image \u2013 in their case, because they and other corporations have rigged the UK system so that they pay hardly any tax<\/a>. But the company was worried that Osborne\u2019s plan might backfire. Presumably they suspected that this dishonest deal would eventually become public \u2013 as it indeed has \u2013 and would further dent their image. Or, to use their terminology, it risked becoming \u201cPR death\u201d.<\/p>\n As one should expect, the only consideration when corporations try to influence public opinion as they pursue their relentless battle to maximise profits is whether the effort will prove beneficial. Not whether such efforts are honest, or ethical, or in the public interest. Only whether they work \u2013 whether the public will think better of the company as it seeks to increase its profits, whatever the costs to the rest of society or the planet.<\/p>\n In fact, far more sensible than the Evening Standard’s plan for each major corporation to make a one-off deal with a newspaper is for them all to have a permanent, collective and invisible deal with all media outlets \u2013 to promote a business environment that allows them to maximise their profits. And that is precisely the situation we already have.<\/p>\nInvisible deal<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/media_consolidation.jpg\")
\n