Why does VG allow Borgerlig Valgseier to pay for “journalism”?

An editor-in-chief cannot have full responsibility for published content and at the same time not have a role in publishing advertiser content.

This is a debate post. Any opinions expressed in the text are the responsibility of the writer. If you want to participate in the debate, you can read how here.

Throughout the spring, an article with the title “An unpleasant truth about the interest rate” has been prominently displayed on VG’s digital front page. In short, the argument is for spending less money on the public sector and for “rejecting the entire wealth tax”.

In contrast to ordinary articles that are pushed down and disappear within a few hours, this one has been brought up again several times on Norway’s most popular website. The reason is that someone has paid for the location.

The practice is called content marketing and is not new.

The reason why this particular case is sensational is that the association Aksyon for Borgerlig Valgseier is behind it. By publishing the article, VG violates adopted EU regulations. In the near future, the publication will probably also break Norwegian law.

The paradox VG

Borgerlig Valgseier is disputed because the association does not make public who finances it. When they allocated funds to the bourgeois parties last year, the Conservative Party, Liberal Party and KrF chose to pay the money back. The Progress Party, on the other hand, agreed to NOK 12 million.

Ironically, VG wrote in the leader’s post on 15 August that “Frp must reject secret million-dollar support”. Section 17 of the Party Act states that “Political parties and party branches cannot receive contributions if the donor is unknown to the party”. VG’s editorial therefore concluded that “Sylvi Listhaug cannot be convinced that Frp’s integrity can be bought”.

The same must be said about VG.

Schrödinger’s editorial poster

As mentioned, the debate around content marketing in the Norwegian media industry is at least ten years old. Aftenposten’s collaboration with Equinor in 2019 perhaps received the most attention.

Together they produced a “controversial advertising podcast” which was complained to the Press’ Professional Committee. The result was a big and public wash-up. The distinction between editorial and paid content should become even clearer.

Schibsted Partnerstudio, which supplies content marketing to Schibsted’s newspapers, was supposed to contribute to watertight bulkheads between editorial staff and advertisers. Schibsted Partnerstudio itself writes about the article produced for Borgerlig Valgseier that “The journalists and editors in Schibsted’s media have no role in the production and publication of this advertiser content”.

This claim is in direct conflict with the Editor’s Placard, which all established media in Norway are obliged to follow. Here it says that “The editor has personal and full responsibility for the media’s content”, which also includes advertisements.

As in Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment, both cannot be true at the same time.

chief editor is responsible for publishing content marketing, even if Schibsted Partnerstudio claims otherwise.

Contradicts the regulations

In a year when roughly half of the world’s population will vote, there has been a lot of focus on electoral influence.

In March, the EU adopted a law that sets strict requirements for transparency labeling of political advertising. The regulations are not currently part of Norwegian law, but in our neighboring countries you must, among other things, document who has paid, where the money comes from and what the purpose of the advertising is.

Action for Borgerlig Valgseier thus refuses to inform voters about where the funding comes from. The association fears “stigmatisation” of the donors if their identity becomes known. VG’s leader believed in August that this was “a thin argument”.

Although most editorials are forgettable, I doubt that the collective memory of the paper’s senior management extends to a few months.

It can therefore be thought that this is a miss.

Political influence

On a general basis, there is nevertheless reason to problematize political content marketing. As the screenshot shows, the article appears similar to the rest of VG’s editorial content, even if it is marked.

The research by Erik Knudsen and colleagues finds that editor-controlled media deliberately use visual means to present advertisements as journalism.

However, some newspapers are clearer than others. One might ask why Bergens Tidende uses a different font, font size and framing for content marketing than VG does.

After all, it is Schibsted Partnerstudio that supplies content to both newspapers.

At the same time, one should not turn one feather into five chickens. It is unlikely that established parties such as the Labor Party and the Conservative Party need to pay for journalistic coverage. They can promote their messages through ordinary news items and traditional advertising.

When Borgerlig Valgseier pays for “journalism”, it clearly shows that an association with unknown funding lacks legitimacy.

That VG helps to let them buy this is problematic.