In 2009, the New York Times published a story about the products containing a special chemical called Resveratrol. This chemical, found in grape skins and red wine was rumored to incread ones life span, improve eyesight, and other obvious misconceptions. After being featured on several shows, (60 minutes, the Oprah Winfrey show) many false claims and celebrity endorsements were linked with the product. These false claims, made by FWM Laboratories, were slammed by bloggers, celebrities, and officials alike.
However, this is not where the problem lies...
After the NY Times wrote this story, it was found published on their site alongside an ad for the Resveratrol product they were warning against. Hypocritical? I think so.
The Times was actually profiting off of this advertisement for the product which they were urging consumers NOT to buy. To worsen the matter, there were six more Google sponsored advertisements for Resveratrol throughout the page.
So whos to blame?
The Times is assuming no responsibility for the obvious hypocrisy featured on their site. Instead, they avert their frustration for the mistake to the advertising department; which they say needs to tighten up their security of which advertisement are displayed on the site.
This blatant mistake may lead readers of the Times to consider that the information they thought credible no longer is, and potentially hurt the papers reputation. The moral of this story urges readers to take a closer look at the information and advertisements that they are being exposed to, instead of taking them at face value.
No comments:
Post a Comment