When I studied journalism in the early '90s our professors drew a direct correlation between newspapers that showed ads "above the fold" and those that didn't. According to the profs if they practiced the former they were clearly not real journalistic enterprises. USA Today did it and they used it as a case that proved their point. How times change.
That's interesting. I can't find a picture of a paper USA Today with an actual advert front page, above the fold. They do put little gossipy teaser type "boxes" there that I guess could be considered "ads" to read a story in their Celebrity section. But no actual advertisement for some 3rd party product or service. Not saying that didn't happen, but it's at least not easy to find.
I know I'm venturing off-topic here, but I believe "above the fold" in the newspaper world referred to story prominence on the front page rather than advertising.
I don't recall, even long ago, seeing ads on real newspapers that were both front-page and "above the fold". I imagine "above the fold" wasn't related to advertising until the web existed.
Marketers/advertisers have clearly felt different about this forever. There's really no doubt that advertisers leaned on newspapers to have certain stories "above the fold" or to not carry or diminish other stories.
I'd say that advertisers are in a good place to know whether people do or don't notice what ads are next to content, or vice versa.
I do notice ads and assume some minimal endorsement of content by the advertisers - we are constantly assured that Internet ads are at least demographically targeted.
Your point that ads have always existed is well taken, but if newspapers looked like a local news site today people wouldn't have bought them (its more akin to the free weekly tabloids than a real newspaper). Newspapers used to make money through classifieds in addition to subscriptions. If only there were local-oriented services newspapers could provide - I hope someone figures out a better model soon.
I don't know much about TV, but in newspapers print and online, where to put ads has at least for a long time included considerations beyond of just what space is available.
At the news site I worked, the CMS had an per article option to white/blacklist ads from categories or disable them entirely. E.g. so to not show an car advertisement boasting their reliability under an article of an car accident where a child has died.
Or in print news papers (especially weekly ones) you often see that it is structured in a way that the realities about the harsh world and negative stories in general are in the first parts and the paper becomes more and more fluffy and feel-good as you turn the pages. It is in those later sections where most big brands want their ads to be placed.
Also, a lot of things that are pretty normal these days would have caused outrage and protests against the publishers not too long ago.
In my view, people were always easily offended/outraged. Just what causes it, and which views have significant followings and voice changes over time.
Out of curiosity, do you think journalistic integrity was also impacted when newspapers used traditional paper advertisements as their source of revenue?
Eg, have newspapers _ever_ had integrity, and if they _did_, what's different?
I don't think the data backs your claim. Sure, maybe in the 2000s after the internet began to dent its model it became a hotel paper, but in its heyday (the 80s and 90s) it was very popular option from newsstands (I'm old enough to remember dropping 50 cents for a copy).
Back in the day, it was common for people to grab their favorite local paper and a USA Today. USA Today was great at national coverage of sports which apparently drove newspaper sales.
As far as I remember things, newspapers used to carry a lot of advertising. And the face value of a newspaper was more-or-less a nominal amount, I suspect largely to support the distribution network.
I don't recall ever seeing a newspaper lying around with ads cut out or scribbled over - which I guess is a simplistic analog of the ad-blockers and such that modern news outlets are up against. You can understand the push to maintain revenue that's needed to support quality journalism.
At the same time, as a consumer of news, print ads would not be centrally and intrusively tracking your every thought either, so the desire to block modern ads is entirely rational.
Modern advertising methods have broken the social contract that used to exist to help keep things in balance.
reply