I'll add my two dirhams worth, which is exactly what I said on Threads. For disclosure too, I've been a GFW member since 2018. Their FB group is hugely supportive and where I came across this BBC NI article. I agree with your points, however the bigger issue at hand is that reviews should only be labelled reviews if the writer has paid the bill. Otherwise it's simply promotional PR copy.
We are largely aligned! I think I part company a little bit with the last bit. For me this comes down to the integrity point buffered with sufficient disclosure to the reader that there may be more going on here that meets the eye. The question is whether the invite causes someone to pull the punches or whether this is advertorial which for both legal and ethical reasons should be fully disclosed to the reader. The reader at that point should then apply as much cynicism as they want to either cast doubt or read between the lines.
The challenge we have here is that, despite legal obligations, very few disclose their invitations and/ or advertising partnerships. I wish the authorities here would enforce regulations, like they do in the UK. On the upside, the reader has wisened up and knows whose narrative to believe, or not!
Love it, please do the 4 part version!
Yeah, that one will need to be delicate!
Anyone without integrity can sell anything, including their soul. So, I agree. Buy for what the product or services sold will do for you.
I also think people are far more cynical about these things now than others think.
I'll add my two dirhams worth, which is exactly what I said on Threads. For disclosure too, I've been a GFW member since 2018. Their FB group is hugely supportive and where I came across this BBC NI article. I agree with your points, however the bigger issue at hand is that reviews should only be labelled reviews if the writer has paid the bill. Otherwise it's simply promotional PR copy.
We are largely aligned! I think I part company a little bit with the last bit. For me this comes down to the integrity point buffered with sufficient disclosure to the reader that there may be more going on here that meets the eye. The question is whether the invite causes someone to pull the punches or whether this is advertorial which for both legal and ethical reasons should be fully disclosed to the reader. The reader at that point should then apply as much cynicism as they want to either cast doubt or read between the lines.
The challenge we have here is that, despite legal obligations, very few disclose their invitations and/ or advertising partnerships. I wish the authorities here would enforce regulations, like they do in the UK. On the upside, the reader has wisened up and knows whose narrative to believe, or not!