Quote Originally Posted by Loramski View Post
I certainly wasn't trying to defend the government, it was just that I had that Private Eye article to hand so I felt able to answer TOBW's question. I thought the headline of the article EC put up was a bit misleading and the use of 'appears' three words into it probably wasn't the best way to back it up. He's got a masters in journalism though so what do I know?

Private Eye were completely cynical about the government campaign and, I'm sure, will have more to say about it next time round. They do that kind of stuff really well, there's no need to sex it up.
How were these produced? At a company I worked for we sponsored advertorials and guy we wrote them ourselves sometimes, with the publisher editing. Other times we’d send them a brief outlining the message we wanted to convey and they’d write it and we’d edit. Either way they were essentially adverts for our company/products dressed-up as editorial.

It could be that’s not what has taken place here in fairness but I thought this was maybe being implied, rather than this being independently produced content just sponsored by the government. Hence the headline.

Did Private Eye clarify that point as it makes a bit of a difference about how would be perceived (acknowledging the broader point that regardless only selected publications have benefited from this advertising fund anyway).