The real cost of pay-to-play news coverage is trust

By JACI CLEMENT //

Real news coverage isn’t for sale.

I was reminded of the issue – again – when it came up at a recent FMC event. The proliferation of pay-to-play is one of the complaints we hear most often about today’s local news landscape: News subjects are pressured, directly or indirectly, to pay for coverage.

Organizations are feeling it hard these days. I hear from people who participate begrudgingly, worn down by how widespread the practice has become.

We all know news outlets are struggling to find sustainable business models – and that struggle has led some outlets to rely on pay-to-play as a normalized revenue stream.

Media relations professionals describe feeling trapped. Decline, and they may not get real news coverage when they deserve it. Play along, and they have purchased coverage they cannot honestly call earned.

Legitimate local news outlets raise a related but distinct concern: The practice is corroding trust in the entire industry.

So why do it?

That’s really not the question. Here’s the real one: When organizations place an emphasis on trust, how do they justify breaking that trust by purchasing promotional coverage masquerading as news?

That’s the question that doesn’t get asked, because it’s the one that makes people shift in their seats. It’s time to deal with the consequences of talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Every organization wants visibility. Very few understand that visibility and credibility are very different things. Visibility means people saw you. Credibility means they had a reason to believe you belonged there.

And even fewer organizations recognize what supporting pay-to-play actually communicates to a community: Real news isn’t valued and independent coverage isn’t worth supporting.

Ironically, local newsrooms have much to lose by engaging in this practice. Pew Research Center’s latest data finds that 80 percent of Americans consider local news at least somewhat important to the wellbeing of their communities. In Pew’s 2024 survey, 71 percent said their local news organizations did a good job reporting accurately.

That credibility is an asset. And pay-to-play squanders it by asking the public to accept purchased visibility as independent editorial judgment.

The practice takes many forms. Indirect pressure (give an interview, then receive a call from the advertising representative). Direct pressure (write a column, for a fee, or get featured, for a price). Be recognized (invoice attached).

Advertising itself is not the problem. Local newsrooms need revenue. Clearly identified advertising, sponsored content and event partnerships are legitimate business products.

The problem begins when money buys the appearance of independent journalism – or when organizations believe refusing to spend money will affect whether their legitimate stories are covered.

For organizations asked to participate, it’s a bind either way. Decline, and competitors may receive the recognition, making your own organization’s absence feel conspicuous. Participate, and justify it by telling yourself, “Everyone else is doing it.”

It all comes down to one fear: If we don’t play, they won’t cover our stories. Once that fear takes hold, everyone suffers.

And everyone is to blame.

Jaci Clement is the CEO and executive director of the Fair Media Council. This article was originally published by the Fair Media Council and republished with permission.