Wait till Freetrader comes on here and tell us this is actually edited by the PRC gvt ;-)
Wait till Freetrader comes on here and tell us this is actually edited by the PRC gvt ;-)
I'm OK without because, unlike you, I'm smart enough to be able to differentiate news and advertising.
Again, if there's a big bar across the top of the page saying "Special Report" or "Sponsored <anything>" then it's not "pretending" to be anything other than advertising.
Last edited by PDLM; 17-09-2011 at 05:29 PM.
I don't recall ever having seen "Special Report" used in the Hong Kong media to mean anything other than "advertising". It has always been absolutely clear to me that that is what it means here.
The whole issue of blatantly absurd advertising is a separate matter.
I've no idea who paid for it, but I don't see why it's important to an attack on the SCMP.
If your gripe has now morphed from being against the SCMP to a more general "why are there no apparent standards of truthfulness required in advertising in Hong Kong" then that's something that we can debate, but I wouldn't criticise the SCMP for taking advertising money from whoever offers it for ads that are legal.
I simply don't agree that it was "presented as a news report". It was blindingly obvious to me that it was an advertisement. And yes, my best guess is also that it was paid for by HKTDC (although again I don't see why who paid for it is an issue).Original Post Deleted
May be you should contact the SCMP editor, and ask him your questions.
Original Post Deleted
Last edited by Oldtimer; 17-09-2011 at 06:46 PM.
But I don't think the editor of a newspaper has any responsibility for the content of advertisements beyond ensuring that they are legal.
While I agree that native speakers should be able to spot advertising copy in the paper whatever the headline, the SCMP does have a large number of non-native readers who would perhaps have more difficulty distinguishing news stories from sponsored stories.