EFEKTIVITAS SISTEM SARINGAN MULTIMEDIA DALAM MENURUNKAN TSS, BOD, NH3-N , PO4 DAN TOTAL COLIFORM...

538 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011 DOI: 10.2501/JAR-51-3-538-552

InTRODUCTIOnAdvertisers often attempt to influence media by

asking for special favors in exchange for their

advertising dollars. Abundant anecdotal (Atkin-

son, 2004; Christians et al., 2009; Collins, 1992; Fine,

2004; Gorman, 2010; Gremillion and Yates, 1997;

Hickey, 1998; Hoyt, 1990; Ives, 2010; Knecht, 1997;

Rappleye, 1998; Sanders and Halliday, 2005; Sutel,

2005; Underwood, 1998a, 1998b) and more limited

empirical evidence (An and Bergen, 2007; Hays

and Reisner, 1990; Howland, 1989; Just and Levine,

2000; Just, Levine, and Regan, 2001; Price, 2003;

Reisner and Walter, 1994; Soley and Craig, 1992)

suggest the existence of “advertiser pressure”—the

term introduced by Soley and Craig (1992).

Favors in exchange of advertising dollars are “on

top of” the scheduled media buy and can range

from special advertising placement to overt manip-

ulation of editorial content including both favora-

ble stories supporting the campaign and avoidance

of any voices critical of the advertiser or its busi-

ness category. “Advertiser pressure”—especially if

the tactic is successful—represents a serious threat

to consumer interests and, as such, is a key (yet,

often unrecognized) advertising-ethics issue.

The separation between editorial and advertis-

ing content belongs to the core of normative jour-

nalistic and media ethics, and it is often compared

to the fundamental political principle of the separa-

tion of “church and state” in modern democracies

(Rappleye , 1998). Although the First Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution advocates freedom only

from state intervention, the notion of the “free

media” often is understood in the sense of inde-

pendence from commercial interests (Shoemaker

and Reese, 1991).

In fact, some critics argue that “private entities in

general and advertisers in particular constitute the

most consistent and the most pernicious ‘censors’

of media content” (Baker, 1992, p. 2099). Indeed,

the independent and free democratic press—which

is not unduly influenced by private or state inter-

ests—is perceived as a key political institution to

most political convictions.

AdvertiserPressureandthePersonalEthical

normsofnewspaperEditorsandAdDirectors

GERGELYnYILASYuniversity of [email protected]

LEOnARDn.REIDuniversity of [email protected]

newspaper journalists and advertising directors were surveyed to update and extend

research on advertising pressure. Results reveal that:

• advertiser pressure is widespread in newspapers; despite economic threats, however,

advertisers succeed with their influence attempts relatively infrequently;

• smaller newspapers do not differ much from larger ones with regard to any forms of

advertiser pressure;

• advertising directors are more permissive in their personal ethical norms for handling

advertiser pressure than editors;

• employees of small newspapers are not much more permissive in their ethical norms

than those of large papers; and

• the amount of economic pressure a newspaper received (but not other forms of

pressure such as influence attempts and acquiescence) is positively correlated with

the permissiveness of media workers’ personal ethical norms.

september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 539

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

The second, more pragmatic, problem is

the potential for consumer deception. As

Hoyt suggested in the Columbia Journalism

Review (1990, “From the reader’s perspec-

tive this confluence of advertising and edito-

rial is confusing: Where does the sales pitch

end? Where does the editor take over?”

There is some evidence that original edi-

torial content is perceived as more trust-

worthy than advertisements provided by

third parties (Cameron, 1994). If, by using

this perceptual difference, advertisers

actively manipulate editorial content—

and this influence is not acknowledged—

consumers are deceived in their search for

reliable product information.

In this latter sense, advertiser pressure

falls under a larger ethical problem area:

the increasing “blurring of advertising

and editorial content” (Peeler and Guthrie,

2007).

Infomercials, advertorials, product

placement, branded entertainment, cer-

tain forms of public relations, and emerg-

ing digital forms of communication (viral

marketing, buzz marketing/seeding,

blogger outreach) all potentially are ethi-

cally problematic because of consumers’

inability to identify whether the informa-

tion is sponsored (and as such, subject to

appropriate attributions about intent and

information value) or “objective” (not

intentionally furthering commercial inter-

ests; Spence and van Heekeren, 2005).

The blurring of editorial and adver-

tising content may deceive even the

“informed, skeptical, sophisticated con-

sumer” (Preston, 2010), on whom much

of modern consumer-interest regulation

is based, because he or she does not have

a chance for an accurate assessment of

source credibility.

Advertising practitioners may not fully

appreciate these issues identified by ethics

scholars. There seems to be a gap between

the enthusiasm of the proponents of

editorial/advertising intermingling and

the vigilance of ethics researchers. What

is “economic censorship” (Baker, 1992),

“advertiser pressure” (Soley and Craig,

1992) or “sponsor interference” (Just and

Levine, 2000) for ethics academics seems

to be value-neutral conceptualizations

of “product placement in print” (Atkin-

son, 1994; Fine, 2004), “entertainment/

advertising convergence” (Donaton, 2004)

or “value-added media buy” (“Media

Round Table,” 1990; Fahey, 1991; Hoyt,

1990) for some advertising practitioners.

The topic is all the more important

today because media—especially tradi-

tional print media—are undergoing radi-

cal transformation and are under severe

economic pressure (Nyilasy, King, and

Reid, 2011). It has been argued that cer-

tain forms of media undergoing economic

hardship are more willing to compromise

on ethical norms than economically pow-

erful players within a market (Soley and

Craig, 1992; An and Bergen, 2007). Print

media, particularly newspapers, therefore

are prime candidates for increased acqui-

escence to advertiser pressure.

For all these reasons, it is imperative

that academic research give detailed and

updated accounts of advertiser pressure.

The consequences of advertiser pressure

are far-reaching; it has both ethical and

managerial implications for both media

and advertising organizations, let alone

millions of consumers. Perhaps surpris-

ingly, despite the foremost importance of

advertiser pressure, very little is known

about the phenomenon in an empirically

rigorous manner.

The purpose of the research reported

in this article is to give a recent and com-

prehensive update on the phenomenon, in

the context of the newspaper industry. The

contribution of the study is threefold:

• It takes a fresh look at both the extent

to which advertiser pressure is present

in the newspaper business and the fre-

quency by which it occurs today.

• It incorporates the investigation of per-

sonal ethical norms for handling adver-

tiser pressure.

• It targets not only newspaper editors

but newspaper advertising directors.

Although advertiser pressure is present

in all media, the authors selected the con-

text of newspapers for the present research

because, arguably, newspapers represent

the traditional elite of journalism. Thus, it

is in newspapers that the consequences of

advertiser pressure are both the most sali-

ent and potentially the most severe.

LITERATUREREvIEW:ADvERTISInGETHICSAnDADvERTISERPRESSUREBefore a review of the targeted empirical

literature on advertiser pressure, it makes

sense to situate the subject in the broader

theoretical and empirical tradition of

advertising ethics.

Despite its importance, the topic of

advertiser pressure on media, surpris-

ingly, does not appear very frequently on

the agenda of advertising-ethics research.

It is telling that although advertiser influ-

ence on media editorial content has been

proposed as a high-priority research topic

(Hyman, Tansey, and Clark, 1994), only

a handful of targeted studies on the sub-

ject have been conducted to date. Further,

Advertiser pressure is widespread in newspapers;

despite economic threats, however, advertisers succeed

with their influence attempts relatively infrequently.

540 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011


the topic does not appear in more gen-

eral accounts of advertising practition-

ers’ ethical views (Chen and Liu, 1998;

Drumwright and Murphy, 2004; Hunt

and Chonko, 1987; Rotzoll and Christians,

1980).

One possible explanation for this lack of

salience is that it is not advertising agen-

cies—but rather the advertisers them-

selves—that exert pressure on media.

Because practitioner surveys/interviews

in advertising ethics traditionally have

focused on agencies, the topic remains

hidden from view.

The study of advertiser pressure also is

difficult to situate within advertising eth-

ics’ classic typologies. Although the field

of advertising ethics traditionally deals

with either the “advertising message” or

the “advertising business” (Drumwright

and Murphy, 2009), advertiser pressure

falls somewhere between those two topics.

It clearly is an organizational ethics issue;

however, it has an impact on consum-

ers through the manipulation of editorial

content.

In the macro-meso-micro typology of

marketing ethics’ levels of analysis (Brink-

mann, 2002; Victor and Cullen, 1988),

advertiser pressure has relevance on all

layers. It is a larger societal issue in the

aggregate; it is influenced by organiza-

tional climate (meso-level); it is enacted

by individual players on the micro-level

and, in this last sense, it is a “personal eth-

ics” problem (Shaver, 2003). Although the

authors recognize all these relevant layers

(also encompassed by Hunt and Vitell’s

comprehensive marketing ethics model

(2006), the present paper focuses on per-

sonal ethical norms (Kohlberg, 1984) when

explaining how media workers confront

advertiser pressure.

Although there are numerous anec-

dotal accounts of advertiser pressure

affecting all media forms (Atkinson,

2004; Christians et al., 2009; Collins, 1992;

Fine, 2004; Gorman, 2010; Gremillion and

Yates, 1997; Hickey, 1998; Hoyt, 1990;

Ives, 2010; Knecht, 1997; Rappleye, 1998;

Sanders and Holliday, 2005; Sutel, 2005;

Underwood 1998a, 1998b), little system-

atic empirical evidence has been pub-

lished in academe.

The authors undertook an extensive

search of research publications to identity

studies on advertiser pressure on media.

The step-by-step process started with

searching research databases (i.e., EBSCO

Business Source Premier and Academic

Research Premier, Emerald, Factiva) for

the keywords of “advertiser pressure,”

and “advertising” and “media” combined

with “social pressure,” “censorship,”

“self-censorship,” “ethics,” “corrupt prac-

tices.” Next, the titles of papers in the con-

tents of the main advertising journals (i.e.,

Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising

Research, International Journal of Advertising

and Journal of Current Issues and Research in

Advertising) were scanned for relevance.

Finally, the literature review sections and

references were read in the identified

papers for further literature. The authors

focused the literature review on the most

important papers, as evidenced by their

highest citation levels or inherent research

interest.

Systematic scholarly evidence comes in

two forms on the topic: indirect and direct.

Indirect evidence is based on the compari-

son of editorial and advertising content.

Studies in this group investigated whether

there was a correlation between the fre-

quency/quality of editorial coverage and

the frequency of advertising (for the given

advertiser/industry) in the media/vehicle

studied. The results were mixed. Some

studies found a strong correlation and

deduced the existence of successful adver-

tiser pressure (Reuter and Zitzewitz, 2006;

Rinallo and Basuroy, 2009; Williams, 1992).

Others found no relationship (Rouner,

Slater, Long, and Stapel, 2009; Poitras and

Sutter, 2009).

Direct evidence is supplied by surveys

among media workers. Soley and Craig’s

“Advertiser Pressures on Newspapers: A

Survey” in the Journal of Advertising (1992)

proved that the phenomenon existed at

that time. That paper also provided an

estimate of the phenomenon’s spread in

U.S. newspapers. The survey investigated

its three facets:

• Influence attempts—advertisers try-

ing to include positive and exclude or

manipulate negative stories

• Economic pressure—the threat to with-

draw and actual withdrawal of advertis-

ing from the medium

• Acquiescence—the extent to which

newspapers cede to advertiser pressure

through:

– complying to overt influence

attempts,

– internalizing the pressure, and

– self-censorship.

Findings showed that the majority of

newspaper editors (in the 70- to 90-percent

range) had experienced advertiser pres-

sure in the form of both influence attempts

and threats of advertising withdrawal.

Acquiescing to such overt pressure, how-

ever, seemed to be much less common

among editors.

Despite its importance, the topic of advertiser pressure

on media, surprisingly, does not appear very frequently

on the agenda of advertising-ethics research.



A more recent study (An and Bergen,

2007) surveyed advertising directors

at daily newspapers using a scenario

approach. Although the study confirmed

the existence of ethical dilemmas around

advertiser pressure, because of its use of

hypothetical scenarios it did not directly

report on the extent of the phenomenon

and, therefore, is not directly comparable

to Soley and Craig’s study (1992).

Magazines also have had their share of

advertiser pressure. A survey reported in

Folio, a magazine for magazine manag-

ers, reported that more than 40 percent of

the editors surveyed had been instructed

by an advertising director or publisher to

do something that they believed signifi-

cantly compromised editorial (Howland,

1989). Acquiescence on the part of those

editors, however, was significantly lower;

according to the study, 60 percent of the

editors said “no” to the influence attempts.

Another survey among farm-magazine

writers and editors found that both influ-

ence attempts and threats to withdraw

advertising were common (Hays and Reis-

ner, 1990).

A replication of Soley and Craig’s 1992

study among television reporters and

editors showed that advertiser pressure

also was widespread in that medium

(Soley, 1997). The majority of respond-

ents reported that they had experienced

influence attempts and threats to with-

draw advertising; however, much less

actual withdrawal (44 percent) or suc-

cessful pressurizing (40 percent) was

reported. Two surveys conducted as part

of the Project for Excellence in Journal-

ism offered further support that a signifi-

cant number of television news directors

encountered advertiser pressures (Just

and Levine, 2000; Just, Levine, and Regan,

2001). These surveys examined only

the “influence attempts” dimension of

advertiser pressure, stating that it was

much more common to ask for favorable

coverage than attempting to prevent

negative stories to appear. In contrast, a

survey of television news directors found

no difference between the frequency of

pressure to report positive stories versus

not to report negative ones (Price, 2003).

Uniformly, 93 percent of the respondents

said they had never felt the pressure to do

either of these.

The aforementioned studies assessed

the extent to which advertiser pressure was

present in the media but left unanswered

the question regarding how often the phe-

nomenon happened. The only study that

reported how many times pressure was

exerted by advertisers on the medium is a

1994 survey of newspaper reporters cov-

ering agricultural news (Reisner and Wal-

ter, 1994). Results showed that advertiser

pressure was not as frequent as anecdo-

tal sources would have suggested: Even

though prepublication threats to withdraw

advertising were received almost every

month (M = 11.5 per year), other forms

of advertiser pressure (such as demands

for coverage, M = 1.7; post-publication

withdrawals, M = 0.1) occurred much less

frequently.

RESEARCHQUESTIOnSAnDHYPOTHESESBased on the literature, the authors tested

one research question and six hypotheses.

The research question addressed both the

extent and frequency with which advertis-

ers pressure newspapers.

R1: How widespread and how fre-

quent is advertiser pressure on

newspapers?

In 1992, Soley and Craig tested a com-

mon assumption of anecdotal sources:

the proposition that smaller market news-

papers are more susceptible to advertiser

pressure than large newspapers. They for-

mulated two hypotheses:

• Smaller newspapers are subject to

more influence attempts and economic

pressure.

• Smaller newspapers are more likely to

acquiesce to pressure.

The study had mixed results, con-

cluding that there was no evidence that

smaller newspapers received more pres-

sure; however, at least on one measure

of acquiescence—self-censorship—small

newspapers tended to score higher.

The authors’ first two hypotheses are as

follows:

H1: Small-circulation newspapers

are subject to more advertiser

pressure (in the forms of influ-

ence attempts and economic

pressure) than large newspapers.

H2: Small newspapers are more

likely to acquiesce to advertiser

pressure than large newspapers.

Journalism ethics codes traditionally

have advocated the maintenance of an

impenetrable wall between editorial and

advertising content. With the increasing

acceptance of the market-oriented news-

paper, however, the separation between

editorial and advertising department no

longer seems so absolute (Hoyt, 1990;

Underwood, 1998a, 1998b).

Although journalism associations stress

the absolute imperatives of editorial integ-

rity, independence, and accountability,

they do not provide specific and detailed

directives about how to handle pressure

in everyday practice (American Society of

Magazine Editors [ASME], 2010; Ameri-

can Society of Newspaper Editors [ASNE],

2010; Associated Press Managing Editors

[APME], 2010; Society of Professional Jour-

nalists [SPJ], 2010). Thus, subjective ethical

beliefs about appropriate advertiser/news-

paper interaction are more informative



about how advertising pressure will be

handled than written (but all too vague)

codes (Reisner and Walter, 1994). Indeed,

general media-ethics research guidelines

advocate the study of both explicit, written

codes and personal ethical criteria (Chris-

tians, Rotzoll, and Fackler, 1991).

There was only one study in the litera-

ture that dealt with such personal ethical

norms in the context of advertiser pressure

(Howland, 1989). The Folio survey among

magazine editors and advertising directors

contained a seven-item scale about per-

sonal ethical norms grounded in everyday

journalistic practice. The study found that

advertising directors seemingly were more

permissive about how they handled adver-

tiser pressure than editors. The authors’

third hypothesis is that the situation is the

same at modern newspapers:

H3: At newspapers, advertising

directors are more permissive in

their personal ethical norms for

handling advertising pressure

than editors.

As small newspapers are hypothesized to

be more prone to advertiser pressure and

acquiescence, it is reasonable to assume

there is also a difference in the personal

ethical norms with which they handle

such pressure. As small newspapers are

considered economically more vulnerable

(Soley and Craig, 1992), our hypothesis is

that they are also more permissive in how

they handle advertiser pressure. This sug-

gests a fourth hypothesis:

H4: The employees of small news-

papers are more permissive in

their subjective guidelines for

handling advertising pressure

than those of large newspapers.

Personal ethical norms for advertiser rela-

tions are not independent of the strength

of the advertiser pressure that the editorial

people are forced to handle. In fact, there

are a number of reasons why there may

be a positive relationship between adver-

tiser pressure strength and personal policy

permissiveness.

On the one hand, it might be more dif-

ficult for newspaper workers to maintain

traditional ethical values in an environ-

ment that strongly discourages them to

do so. Indeed, the pressures might be so

strong that employees would handle the

conflict by loosening some personal ethical

norms. On the other hand, the causal flow

might work the other way, too: the percep-

tion that newspaper workers are more per-

missive might encourage some advertisers

to exert more pressure on those newspa-

pers. Further, as ethical norms—both per-

sonal/implicit and explicitly stated—have

the purpose of resisting some allegedly

unethical behaviors, it follows that if these

ethical norms are less strict, the pressure

can be more successful.

Therefore, the authors’ final two hypoth-

eses are as follows:

H5: The presence of advertiser pres-

sures—both influence attempts

and economic pressure—is posi-

tively related to more permis-

sive personal ethical norms.

H6: More permissive personal ethi-

cal norms are positively related

to acquiescence to advertiser

pressure.

METHODOLOGYQuestionnaireConstructionandPretestThree facets of advertiser pressure were

measured by scales developed by Soley

and Craig (1992):

• Influence attempts—whether advertis-

ers attempted to influence the inclusion,

exclusion, and content of stories

• Economic pressure—whether adver-

tisers threatened to withdraw or in fact

withdrew their advertising from the

newspaper

• Newspaper acquiescence—whether

advertisers succeeded in pressuring

the newspaper to modify its editorial

content, or if the newspaper decided to

exercise self-censorship.

One item from the Soley and Craig

(1992) study (“Has there been pressure

from within your paper to write or tailor

news stories to please advertisers?”) was

omitted from the current research because

it was applicable to editors only, and thus

it did not suit the broader approach of

extending the study by the inclusion of

advertising directors. The option of ask-

ing the question of editors and advertis-

ing directors in different ways also was

rejected, because the intention was to

keep the questionnaire uniform, allow-

ing consistent comparisons across the two

groups. Additional items were included

to assess the strength of the different fac-

ets of advertiser pressure, asking for the

frequency with which the phenomena

occurred during the past year.

The concept of personal ethical norms

was measured by the scale developed by

Howland in Folio (1989). Open-end ques-

tions allowed respondents to include a

more detailed description of their reac-

tions to advertiser pressure and to specify

the advertiser groups from which they had

received the most attempts to influence

editorial content.

The instrument was pretested by asking

four journalism professors who reviewed

and evaluated the questionnaire items.

The four had significant professional jour-

nalistic experience and familiarity with

survey methodologies. No serious issues

were identified by the pretest, but the

questionnaire was slightly modified in

two ways:



• The timeframe for measuring the rate

of recurrence of advertiser pressure was

expanded from a 2-month window to a

year to allow greater variance.

• The visual layout of the questionnaire as

posted on the Web site was simplified,

making the completion of the question-

naire easier for respondents.

SamplingA random sample of U.S. newspapers

was drawn from the Editor and Publisher

International Yearbook. “Large” newspa-

pers were defined operationally as the

“Top 100” daily newspapers listed by

the Yearbook; all these newspapers were

included in the sample. Further, a simple

random sample of smaller newspapers

(n = 100) was drawn from the rest of the

listed newspapers (the cutoff point for

the inclusion in the small category was

101,598 daily circulation). A similar sepa-

ration of large and small newspapers at

the 100,000 mark was used by Underwood

and Stamm in their “Balancing Business

with Journalism: Newsroom Policies at

12 West Coast Newspapers” in Journalism

Quarterly (1992).

From the staff of each large newspaper,

the managing editor, the national news

editor, the regional editor, and the adver-

tising director were selected. In the case of

small papers, the managing editor and the

advertising director were identified. The

sampling procedures yielded 392 e-mail

addresses for large newspapers and 173

for small dailies.

DataCollectionProceduresData were collected through a multimodal

survey; respondents were invited through

e-mails to go to a Web site and fill out the

questionnaire. The Internet platform was

chosen because it is an effective method

to reach respondents who might be over-

burdened by other, more traditional con-

tact attempts (Schaefer and Dillman,

1993; Cook, Heath, and Thompson, 2000).

Internet surveys also can be administered

much faster than mail surveys because of

instantaneous distribution and very high

response speed, two factors in achiev-

ing higher response rates (Illieva, Baron,

and Healey, 2002). Internet-based surveys

have been shown to be especially effective

with audiences that have near-universal

Internet-access (Couper, 2001). News-

paper workers are a good fit because they

are savvy Internet users who often check

e-mail and browse websites (Garrison,

2004).

To maximize response rate, a tailored

design to survey administration was uti-

lized (Dillman, 2000). An endorsement

e-mail from a well-known veteran journal-

ist—who was also the head of a credible

newspaper management research center—

was sent out to every respondent in the

sample. The letter emphasized the impor-

tance of participating in the study and

notified the respondents that the research-

ers will soon contact them through e-mail.

The invitation e-mail was sent out a few

days after the endorsement letter and

asked the recipients to participate in the

survey. The letter contained a hyperlink to

the opening webpage of the survey, which

had been placed on UGA’s website prior

to the mailings. The webpages included a

brief introduction, a consent form, and the

survey instrument itself. Complete ano-

nymity was promised, aiming at minimiz-

ing social desirability bias. A follow-up

e-mail was sent 3 weeks later reminding

the recipients to participate in the sur-

vey. Finally, a thank you note followed

3 weeks later, asking non-respondents

to visit the study website and fill out the

questionnaire.

One hundred and one questionnaires

were returned, of which 81 were com-

pleted and useable. After excluding unde-

liverable mailings, the adjusted response

rate was 23.4 percent. This figure is within

the inter-quartile range (20 percent–46

percent) of mail business sample response

rates, as evidenced by a recent meta-anal-

ysis in organizational research (Cycyota

and Harrison, 2006). Ethics topics are also

known for lower response rates, with

Hunt and Chonko (1987) reporting 17 per-

cent. Non-response error was checked by

comparing early and late responses on key

variables (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).

No significant differences were found.

FInDInGSThe majority of respondents were from

the editorial side (managing editors 46.9

percent; national and news editors, 11.1

percent; regional and city editors, 16.0 per-

cent), while 25.9 percent of the respond-

ents were advertising directors (See Table

1). Nearly three-quarters (71.6 percent) of

the responses were from large newspapers

(top 100, above 101,598 daily circulation).

AdvertiserPressure:InfluenceAttempts,EconomicPressure,andAcquiescenceThe different aspects advertiser pres-

sure—the primary focus of R1—showed

wide variation (See Table 2). Although

TABLE1Profile of national newspaper Respondents

Percent Frequency

Position (n = 81)

Managing Editor 46.9 38

national Editor/news Editor

11.1 9

Regional/Metro/city Editor

16.0 13

Advertising Director 25.9 21

Circulation Size (n = 81)

Above 101,598 71.6 58

Below 101,598 28.4 23



attempts to influence the selection of sto-

ries (reported by 64.2 percent of respond-

ents), to influence the content of stories

(70.9 percent), and both threatening to

withdraw advertising from the newspa-

per (80.0 percent) and actual withdrawal

(78.2 percent) were widespread, many

fewer cases were reported about advertis-

ers attempting to kill stories (37.2 percent)

or newspapers giving in to overt pressure

(23.4 percent) or practicing self-censorship

(19.8 percent).

The number of times advertisers exert

pressure on newspapers yearly also varied.

Although equally widespread, influence

attempts (on story selection: M = 3.8 per

year, SD = 8.69; on story content: M = 3.7, SD

= 7.49) seem to take place more frequently

than the use of economic pressure (threat to

withdraw: M = 2.2, SD = 3.01; withdrawal:

M = 1.0, SD = 1.38). In contrast, whereas few

newspapers acquiesced to advertiser pres-

sure, those that did seem to have given in

relatively frequently (M = 1.9, SD = 1.87)

compared to the number of attempts.

PersonalEthicalnormsforAdvertiserRelationsPersonal ethical norms for newspaper-

advertiser interaction also showed

some variation (See Table 3). Although

the majority of the respondents (64.2 per-

cent) said that they thought that there

was nothing wrong with the advertising

director delivering a press release to

the editor, asking the editor to have

lunch with advertisers (37.0 percent) or

to use advertisers as sources for stories

are considered much less acceptable (38.3

percent).

A request for a story by the advertising

director was adequate, according to 20 per-

cent of the respondents. Preference over

non-advertisers (8.6 percent) and advertis-

ing-director access to stories before print-

ing (3.7 percent) were even less favored.

TABLE2Advertiser Pressure: Influence Attempts, Economic Pressure, and Acquiescence†

validpercent Frequency

numberoftimeslastyear(mean)

numberoftimeslastyear(standarddeviation)

Influence Attempts

Attempt to influence story selection 64.2 52 3.8 8.69

Attempt to influence content 70.9 56 3.7 7.49

Attempt to kill story 37.2 29 0.7 1.67

Economic Pressure

Threat to withdraw advertising 80.0 64 2.2 3.01

withdrawal of advertising 78.2 61 1.0 1.38

Acquiescence

Has any advertiser succeeded in influencing news or features in your newspaper?

23.4 18 1.9 1.87

Our newspaper seldom runs stories which our advertisers would find critical or harmful.

19.8 16 — —

† Percentages and frequencies in table reflect respondents who answered “Yes” or “Agree.”

TABLE3Personal Ethical norms for Advertiser Relations†

validpercent Frequency

It’s appropriate for an ad director …

… to ask an editor to have lunch with an advertiser? 37.0 30

… to deliver personally a press release from the advertiser to the editor?

64.2 52

… to ask the editor to consider using advertisers as sources for stories?

38.3 31

… to ask the editor to give advertisers preference over non-advertisers in stories?

8.6 7

… to ask the editor to write a story about an advertiser? 20.0 16

… to ask the editor to avoid writing anything negative about advertisers?

0.0 0

… to ask to see any story that mentions an advertiser? 3.7 3.7

† Percentages and frequencies in table reflect respondents who answered “Yes.”



The biggest taboo seemed to be asking the

editor to avoid negative reporting about

advertisers. No respondent considered it

appropriate.

TheEffectofCirculationSizeonAdvertiserPressureThe first hypothesis (H1) suggested that

smaller newspapers were more likely

to be subject to advertiser pressure than

larger ones. A Z-test of proportions indi-

cated there was limited support for the

hypothesized relationship (See Table 4).

The only variable that might be related

to circulation size was threats of advertis-

ing withdrawal (73.7 percent of the large

newspaper respondents reporting threat

vs. 95.7 percent of small newspapers)

as indicated by a Z value of 2.013. Thus,

there was only partial support for the

hypothesis.

According to the second hypothesis

(H2), smaller newspapers were more

prone to acquiescing to advertiser pres-

sure. There was some support for this

hypothesis (See the bottom part of

Table 4). Direct acquiescence was sig-

nificantly related to circulation size for

the self-censorship outcome of “seldom

running stories advertisers would find

critical or harmful” (39.1 percent of small

newspapers reported self censorship

vs. 12.1 percent of large newspapers, Z

value = 2.449), though circulation size was

not related to advertiser’s perceived suc-

cess in influencing news coverage. Thus,

there again was only partial support for

H2.

PredictorsofPersonalEthicalnorms:EmployeePositionandCirculationSizeThe third hypothesis (H3) predicted that

advertising directors were more lenient in

their approach to advertisers than editors

and the authors’ data shows strong sup-

port for that prediction.

All interpretable significance tests

showed a difference between advertising

directors and editors (See Table 5). Adver-

tising directors were more likely to think

that it is acceptable:

• to ask the editor to have lunch with the

advertiser (ad directors: 71.4 percent

vs. editors: 25.0 percent; Z value = 3.53,

df = 1, p < 0.05);

• to deliver a press release personally

from advertiser to editor (ad directors:

90.5 percent vs. editors: 55.0 percent;

Z value = 2.654, df = 1, p < 0.05);

• to consider using advertisers as sources

for stories (ad directors: 81.0 percent vs.

editors: 23.3 percent; Z value = 4.415,

df = 1, p < 0.05); and

• to ask the editor to write a story about

an advertiser (ad directors: 42.9 percent

vs. editors: 11.9 percent; Z value = 2.771,

df = 1, p < 0.05).

The rest of the differences could be

interpreted only qualitatively owing to the

low cell counts; all but one relationship

(one item showing zero variance), how-

ever, were in the expected direction. H3 is

accepted.

The authors also hypothesized (H4) that

employees of small newspapers (both edi-

tors and advertising directors) were more

permissive in their personal ethical norms

prescribing normative behaviors with

advertisers than large ones. And there was

limited support for the hypothesis (See

Table 6).

There were two items that were related

to employee position; employees of

small newspapers thought it was more

acceptable to consider using advertisers

as sources for stories than large newspa-

per employees (small: 60.9 percent vs.

large: 29.3 percent; Z value = 2.382, df = 1,

p < 0.05) and also to ask the editor to write

a story about an advertiser (small: 39.1

TABLE4newspaper circulation size as an Indicator of Advertiser Pressure Outcomes†

Largenewspapers(%)(n =58)

Smallnewspapers(%)(n =23) Zvalue

Outcome variable

Attempt to influence story selection 58.6 (34) 78.3 (18) 1.46

Attempt to influence content 71.9 (41) 68.2 (15) 0.214

Attempt to kill story 41.8 (23) 26.1 (6) 0.892

Threat to withdraw advertising 73.7 (42) 95.7 (22) 2.013*

withdrawal of advertising 74.5 (41) 87.0 (20) 1.245

Has any advertiser succeeded in influencing news or features in your newspaper?

20.4 (11) 30.4 (7) 0.822

Our newspaper seldom runs stories which our advertisers would find critical or harmful.

12.1 (7) 39.1 (9) 2.449*

* p < 0.05† Percentages and frequencies in table reflect respondents who answered “Yes” or “Agree.” Percentages are within-group. Within-group frequencies are in parentheses.



percent vs. large: 12.3 percent; Z value =

2.449, df = 1, p < 0.05).

Other aspects of the personal ethi-

cal norms concept were independent

of newspaper size, including the rela-

tionships that can be interpreted only

qualitatively. Thus, H4 had only limited

support.

To test the final two hypotheses (H5

and H6), the authors created scales for

influence attempts, economic pressure,

acquiescence, and personal ethical norms.

Most scales reached an acceptable level of

reliability (influence attempts, α = 0.75;

economic pressure, α = 0.76; personal

ethical norms, α = 0.62). Acquiescence to

overt pressure and self-censorship had

to be kept separate because of low scale

TABLE5Employee Position as an Indicator of Personal Policies for Advertiser Relations†

Editors(%)(n =60)

AdvertisingDirectors(%)(n =21) Zvalue

Outcome variable


… to ask an editor to have lunch with an advertiser? 25.0 (15) 71.4 (15) 3.53*

… to deliver personally a press release from the advertiser to the editor? 55.0 (33) 90.5 (19) 2.654*

… to ask the editor to consider using advertisers as sources for stories? 23.3 (14) 81.0 (17) 4.415*

… to ask the editor to give advertisers preference over nonadvertisers in stories? 5.0 (3) 19.0 (4) —‡

… to ask the editor to write a story about an advertiser? 11.9 (7) 42.9 (9) 2.771*

… to ask the editor to avoid writing anything negative about advertisers? 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) —‡

… to ask to see any story that mentions an advertiser? 1.7 (1) 9.5 (2) —‡

*p < 0.05† Percentages and frequencies in table reflect respondents who answered “Yes.” Percentages are within-group. Within-group frequencies are in parentheses. All tests have 1 degree of freedom.‡ The Z statistic cannot be interpreted because cells have counts of less than 5.

TABLE6newspaper circulation size as an Indicator of Personal Policies for Advertiser Relations†

Largenewspapers(%)(n =58)

Smallnewspapers(%)(n =23) Zvalue

Outcome variable


… to ask an editor to have lunch with an advertiser? 31.0 (18) 52.2 (12) 1.521

… to deliver personally a press release from the advertiser to the editor? 58.6 (34) 78.3 (18) 1.406

… to ask the editor to consider using advertisers as sources for stories? 29.3 (17) 60.9 (14) 2.382*

… to ask the editor to give advertisers preference over nonadvertisers in stories? 3.4 (2) 21.7 (5) —‡

… to ask the editor to write a story about an advertiser? 12.3 (7) 39.1 (9) 2.449*

… to ask the editor to avoid writing anything negative about advertisers? 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) —‡

… to ask to see any story that mentions an advertiser? 3.4 (2) 4.3 (1) —‡

*p < 0.05† Percentages and frequencies in table reflect respondents who answered “Yes.” Percentages are within-group. Within-group frequencies are in parentheses. All tests have 1 degree of freedom.‡ The Z statistic cannot be interpreted because cells have counts of less than 5.



reliability. Pearson correlations were cal-

culated to test the hypotheses.

The analyses yielded mixed support

for H5. There was a significant correla-

tion between economic pressure and per-

sonal policy permissiveness (r = 0.309, p

< 0.05), but influence attempts were not

related to personal ethical norms. Finally,

H6 suggested that the more permissive

newspaper workers are, the more likely

advertisers will be successful with their

influence attempts. The hypothesis was

rejected; neither success of overt attempts,

nor the degree of self-censorship is related

to personal policy permissiveness.

SUMMARY,DISCUSSIOn,AnDIMPLICATIOnSFrom the results, the following conclu-

sions can be drawn:

• Advertiser pressure is widespread in

the newspaper business; despite eco-

nomic threats to withdraw advertising,

however, the extent and frequency of

advertisers succeeding with their influ-

ence attempts is relatively low.

• Smaller newspapers do not differ

greatly from their larger counterparts

with regard to any aspects of advertiser

pressure.

• Advertising directors are more permis-

sive in their personal ethical norms

for handling advertiser pressure than

editors.

• Employees of small newspapers are not

much more permissive in their personal

ethical norms than those of large papers.

• The more economic pressure a news-

paper receives (but not other forms of

pressure), the more likely it is that the

employees will have more permissive

ethical norms for handling pressures.

Overall, these findings are in line with

previous studies; advertiser pressure is

widespread, but some of its forms are

more likely to occur than others. In accord-

ance with the Soley and Craig (1992)

study, influence attempts on content and

selection are more likely than attempts

to kill stories. Similarly, advertisers do

not always succeed with their influence

attempts; in fact, more often than not, they

fail. Soley and Craig’s finding that adver-

tiser pressure is to some extent independ-

ent of circulation size also is replicated by

the present study.

The authors’ data showed decreased

levels of advertiser pressure (with the

exception of one variable) when compared

to the 1992 numbers. Overall, newspapers

reported less pressure in the current study

than their counterparts did nearly two

decades ago, with an average negative dif-

ference of 15.7 percent. The largest drop

was in overt attempts to kill stories (34.2

percent). Self-censorship was the only var-

iable that shows a higher value compared

to the 1992 data (a 4.8-percent increase).

All personal policy permissiveness

scores were lower in the present study

than what Howland (1989) reported 21

years ago (an 18-percent decrease). It is

important to note, however, that the Folio

study was conducted in the context of

magazines, which are usually considered

more prone to advertiser pressure than

newspapers (Soley, 2002). Nevertheless,

the negative difference offers further sup-

port for the conclusion that advertiser

pressure is decreasing.

This decrease in advertiser pressure

might seem counterintuitive, especially

when one considers anecdotal sources

suggesting an actual increase (Ives, 2010;

Sanders and Halliday, 2005; Sutel, 2005).

Similarly, the advertising industry’s

increasing willingness to try to merge

advertising and editorial content through

advertorials, product placements, branded

entertainment, and other forms of cross-

over would suggest a contradictory pre-

diction (Atkinson, 2004; Donaton, 2004;

Fine, 2004; Gorman, 2010).

There are a number of possible reasons

why the authors have found these some-

what surprising results. One possibility is

that advertiser pressure truly decreased,

perhaps because newspapers have real-

ized (and have also made their advertisers

understand) that, even if in the short run

it pays to allow some confluence of adver-

tising and editorial content, the long-term

interest of the newspaper industry is edi-

torial integrity.

It is also possible that advertisers have

become subtler in their influence attempts

(this may be supported by the finding that

there is a large drop in overt attempts to

kill stories) and instead they chose to let

the newspapers censor themselves. This

possibility is corroborated by the fact that

self-censorship was the only measure

that increased compared to the 1992 data.

Reported self-censorship, however, still

was much lower (19.8 percent) than other

measures of advertiser pressure.

Finally, it is also possible that news

people have become more cautious when

discussing advertiser pressure. Moreover,

as it is socially undesirable to admit to

what traditionally is considered as some-

thing opposing fundamental advertising

and media ethics, they paint a rosier pic-

ture than what reality is like. Although

this explanation is possible, the fact that

Smaller newspapers do not differ greatly

from their larger counterparts with regard

to any aspects of advertiser pressure.



the authors granted complete anonymity

should have reduced that social desirabil-

ity bias, if not eradicated it altogether.

IMPLICATIOnSFORPRACTICEThe implications of this study for media

and advertising are far-reaching. Wide-

spread advertiser pressure—and even

a limited extent of acquiescence to such

pressures—has serious ethical conse-

quences for newspapers.

Journalism’s special claim for elevated,

professional status hinges on the idea of

objective information dissemination and

the altruistic ideal of serving the pub-

lic’s right to know. If this ideal were to be

curtailed by economic interests beyond

acceptable ethical standards, the newspa-

per industry would have to face a loss of

its special status.

How managers at newspapers deal with

advertising pressure, however, is much

more than an ethical issue. Advertisers’

controversial requests also have economic

ramifications for the future of newspapers,

both directly and indirectly.

If newspapers can sell their advertising

space only by also selling their editorial

content to a certain extent, it evidently leads

to the devaluation of their primary com-

modity. It is an ethical concern for newspa-

pers to preserve not only the integrity of the

editorial content but economic self-interest.

Further, the perception that a newspa-

per is biased in favor of certain advertis-

ers—or that it has “sold out” to advertisers

in general—very quickly can undermine

its reputation among its primary consum-

ers—the reading public. Loss in credibility

and a negative image, in turn, may lead

to diminished readership and eventually

advertising revenue losses. It is the news-

papers’ self-interest to stop the downward

spiral and preserve editorial integrity,

even if it means stiffer resistance to adver-

tising pressure (Gorman, 2010).

One aspect of the successful manage-

ment of advertiser pressure is the devel-

opment of better corporate-, “meso-level”

ethical norms and matching ethical cli-

mate (Brinkmann, 2002; Victor and Cul-

len, 1988). And, in fact, there seems to be

a wide disagreement between editors and

advertising directors about what is sub-

jectively acceptable when interacting with

advertisers and advertising pressure.

Closing the gap between the newsroom

and the advertising department, in this

sense, may be a step forward. Making

the personal ethical norms explicit can

clarify what is acceptable. Clear and com-

mon understanding of advertiser pressure

guidelines within newspapers or other

media organizations can make resistance

against ethically questionable advertiser

requests easier. Although explicit poli-

cies, in themselves, are not sufficient—as

evidence shows, individuals are far too

willing to violate company policy when

incentives are present (Beltramini, 1986)—

they can be a way forward.

The current study also has implications

for advertisers and advertising agencies.

Although merging editorial and advertis-

ing content has significant appeal for an

advertising industry haunted by decreas-

ing advertising effectiveness, consumer

cynicism, advertising avoidance, and

media fragmentation, advocates of blur-

ring editorial and advertising content

need to realize that serious ethical issues

are also involved in these practices.

It is in the advertising industry’s self-

interest to clarify these issues, and flesh

out under what specific conditions it is

acceptable to move into the content or,

conversely, when it might be deceptive for

the consumer.

A crucial distinction might lie, for

instance, between entertainment (fictional)

and editorial (nonfictional) media content

and, in the case of inherently nonfictional

newspapers, between “hard” news and

“lighter” feature stories.

Claims about featured or “embedded”

products and/or marketers are of a dif-

ferent sort in each media case. “Prod-

uct placement in print” (Atkinson, 1994;

Fine, 2004)—if print means news media

allegedly reporting objective evaluations

of products and services (featured)—is

different from product placement in fic-

tional/entertainment contexts (embedded

or placed); and the expectations of objec-

tivity might even differ in the case of hard

news versus features.

The advertising industry must develop

specific guidelines—much more detailed

than the foregoing distinctions—in coop-

eration with the various media forms to

avoid the specter of an entire new species

of commercial manipulation.

In short, advertiser pressure is no longer

an ethical issue for only the media but for

the advertising industry as well.

FUTURERESEARCHDIRECTIOnSOne potential future research direction

could clarify hypothesized differences

between media in terms of the extent and

frequency of advertiser pressure: the con-

tention that magazines are more prone to

advertiser pressure and especially acqui-

escence should be tested (Zachary, 1992).

Previous academic studies of advertiser

pressure on television showed that the

phenomenon was less common than it

was in print; the use of different question-

naire items, however, makes direct com-

parisons difficult.

Soley’s replication (1997) comes clos-

est to being the basis for true comparison

between TV and print. As that study was

published in a non-peer-reviewed outlet,

however, and there was minimal meth-

odological information offered, reaching

solid conclusions from that study is diffi-

cult. To make meaningful inter-media com-



parisons possible, more research is needed

about pressures on magazine and TV.

The other side of advertiser pressure—

the advertisers themselves—also could be

a good source of information for future

research. In particular, details about pres-

sure tactics could be investigated. This

information would be especially useful as

most of what we know about advertiser

pressure is coming from media workers.

Although some forms of advertiser pres-

sure might be perceived by advertisers as

controversial—and subject to social-desir-

ability biases—advertisers can be quite

open about some other variants.

For instance, anecdotal sources suggest

that “advance-warning ethical norms”—

guidelines requiring media to notify

advertisers in advance of controversial

stories to be published in the medium the

advertisers buy space in—is one variety

that advertisers are receptive to (Gorman,

2010; Ives, 2010; Sanders and Halliday,

2005; Sutel, 2005). The study of advertiser

pressure from the advertisers’ perspec-

tive could complement the existing direct

knowledge about advertiser pressure,

information that exclusively is based on

surveys of media workers.

All of these research issues should be

studied cross-culturally and in the con-

text of American media. It is reasonable to

speculate that media in different countries

are pressured by advertisers, though such

actions and outcomes are surely affected

by specific political, cultural, and eco-

nomic conditions of indigenous market-

ing/media systems.

Comparative research is needed to doc-

ument the nature, extent, and frequency of

advertiser pressure on media around the

world.

GerGeLy nyiLasy is lecturer at the department of marketing

and management at the university of Melbourne in

Australia. His main research interests are practitioner

cognition and professionalism in marketing and

advertising, advertising effects, market research

methods, and ethical issues. His research has appeared

in the Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising

Research, International Journal of Advertising, and

Admap. Before reentering the academic world, Gergely

was a planner at JwT, new york and head of R&D at Hall

& Partners, new york.

Leonard n. reid is professor of advertising at the

university of Georgia. He is a former editor of the Journal

of Advertising and is a Fellow of the American Academy

of Advertising. His most recent research has focused on

trust in advertising, practitioners’ theories of advertising,

and pharmaceutical advertising. His research has

appeared in the Journal of Advertising, International

Journal of Advertising, Journal of Current Issues and

Research in Advertising, and Journal of Advertising

Research.

REFEREncEs

american society oF maGazine editors.

“Guidelines for Editors and Publishers.”

Retrieved November 13, 2010, from [URL:

http://www.magazine.org/asme/asme_

guidelines/guidelines.aspx].

american society oF newsPaPer editors.

“Statement of Principles.” Retrieved Novem-

ber 13, 2010, from [URL: http://asne.org/

article_view/articleid/325/asnes-statement-of-

principles.aspx].

an, s., and l. BerGen. “Advertiser Pressure

on Daily Newspapers: A Survey of Advertis-

ing Sales Executives.” Journal of Advertising 36,

2 (2007): 111–121.

armstronG, J. s., and t. s. overton. “Estimating

Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of

Marketing Research 14, 3 (1977): 396–402.

associated Press manaGinG editors. “State-

ment of Ethical Principles.” Retrieved Novem-

ber 13, 2010, from [URL: http://www.apme.

com/?page=EthicsStatement].

atKinson, c. “Press Group Attacks Magazine

Product Placement: Wants ASME to Affirm Ban

on Commerce/Content Mixing.” AdAge.com,

September 27, 2004. Retrieved November 13,

2010, from [URL: at http://www.adage.com/

news.cms?newsId=41597].

BaKer, c. e. “Advertising and a Democratic

Press,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review

140, 6 (1992): 2097–2243.

Beltramini, r. F. “Ethics and the Use of Com-

petitive Information Acquisition Strategies.”

Journal of Business Ethics 5, 4 (1986): 307–311.

BrinKmann, J. “Business and Marketing Ethics:

Concepts, Approaches and Typologies.” Journal

of Business Ethics 41, 1/2 (2002): 159–177.

cameron, G. t. “Does Publicity Outperform

Advertising?: An Experimental Test of the

Third-Party Endorsement.” Journal of Public

Relations Research 6, 3 (1994): 185–205.

cHen, a. w., and J. m. liU. “Agency Practi-

tioners’ Perceptions of Professional Ethics in

Taiwan.” Journal of Business Ethics 17, 1 (1998):

15–23.

cHristians, c. G., K. m. rotzoll, and m.

FacKler. Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reason-

ing. New York: Longman, 1991.

cHristians, c. G., m. FacKler, K. B. mcKee,

P. J, KresHel, and r. H. woods Jr.Media Eth-

ics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. New York: Long-

man, 2009.

collins, r. K. l. Dictating Content: How

Advertising Pressure Can Corrupt a Free Press.

Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Com-

mercialism, 1992.



cooK, c., F. HeatH, and r. l. tHomPson. “A

Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or

Internet-Based Surveys.” Educational and Psy-

chological Measurement 60, 6 (2000): 821–836.

coUPer, m. P. “Web Surveys: A Review of

Issues and Approaches.” Public Opinion Quar-

terly 64, 4 (2001): 464–494.

cycyota, c. s., and d. a. Harrison. “What

(Not) to Expect When Surveying Executives: A

Meta-Analysis of Top Manager Response Rates

and Techniques over Time.” Organizational

Research Methods 9, 2 (2006): 133–160.

dillman, d. a. Mail and Internet Surveys: The

Tailored Design Method. New York: J. Wiley, 2000.

donaton, s. Madison & Vine: Why the Entertain-

ment and Advertising Industries Must Converge to

Survive. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

drUmwriGHt, m. e., and P. e. mUrPHy. “How

Advertising Practitioners View Ethics: Moral

Muteness, Moral Myopia, and Moral Imagina-

tion.” Journal of Advertising 33, 2 (2004): 7–24.

drUmwriGHt, m. e., and P. e. mUrPHy. “The

Current State of Advertising Ethics: Industry

and Academic Perspectives.” Journal of Advertis-

ing 38, 1 (2009): 83–107.

FaHey, a. “Cable TV Pushes Value-Added

Deals.” Advertising Age 62 (April 1, 1991): 34.

Fine, J. “Marketers Press for Product Place-

ment in Magazine Text: Call for End of Strict

Separation between Advertising and Editorial

Content.” AdAge.com, April 12, 2004. Retrieved

November 13, 2010, from [URL: http://www.

adage.com/news.cms?newsId=40248].

Garrison, B. “Newspaper Journalists Use

E-Mail to Gather News.” Newspaper Research

Journal 25, 2 (2004): 58–69.

Gorman, s. “L.A. Times Sells Disney Front

Page for Movie Ad.” Reuters.com, March 5,

2010. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from

[URL: http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?

aid=USTRE6250BL20100303].

Gremillion, J., and K. yates. “US Editors

Fight to Defend Magazine Content from Adver-

tiser Influence.” Campaign (August 1, 1997): 23.

Hays, r. G., and a. e. reisner. “Feeling the

Heat from Advertisers: Farm Magazine Writers

and Ethical Pressures.” Journalism Quarterly 67,

4 (1990): 936–942.

HicKey, n. “Money Lust: How Pressure for

Profit Is Perverting Journalism.” Columbia Jour-

nalism Review 37, 2 (1998): 28–36.

Howland, J. “Ad vs. Edit: The Pressure

Mounts.” Folio 18, 12 (1989): 92–100.

Hoyt, m. “When the Walls Come Tumbling

Down.” Columbia Journalism Review 28, 6 (1990):

35–40.

HUnt, s. d., and l. B. cHonKo. “Ethical Prob-

lems of Advertising Agency Executives.” Jour-

nal of Advertising 16, 4 (1987): 16–24.

HUnt, s. d., and s. J. vitell. “The General

Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Revision and

Three Questions.” Journal of Macromarketing 26,

2 (2006): 143–153.

Hyman, m. r., r. tansey, and J. w. clarK.

“Research on Advertising Ethics: Past, Present,

and Future.” Journal of Advertising 23, 3 (1994):

5–15.

illieva, J., s. Baron, and n. m. Healey. “Online

Surveys in Marketing Research: Pros and

Cons.” International Journal of Market Research

44, 3 (2002): 361–376.

ives, n. “The Ad/Edit Wall Worn Down to a

Warning Track.” Advertising Age, 81 (August 23,

2010): 3, 22.

JUst, m., and r. levine. “Brought to You By…:

Sponsor Interference.” Columbia Journalism

Review 39, 4 (2000): 93.

JUst, m., r. levine, and K. reGan. “News

for Sale: Half of Stations Report Sponsor Pres-

sure on News Decisions.” Columbia Journalism

Review, 40, 4 (2001): 2–3.

KnecHt, B. G. “Hard Copy: Magazine Adver-

tisers Demand Prior Notice of ‘Offensive’ Arti-

cles.” Wall Street Journal, April 30, 1997.

KoHlBerG, l. The Psychology of Moral Develop-

ment. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984.

media roUnd taBle. “Value-Added, the New

Medium: Marketing Partnerships Taking on an

Increasing Importance with Media Owners.”

Advertising Age, 61 (April 9, 1990): S36, S38.

nyilasy, G., K. w. KinG, and l. n. reid.

“Checking the Pulse of Print Media: Fifty Years

of Newspaper and Magazine Advertising

Research.” Journal of Advertising Research 51, 1

Supplement (2011): 167–175.

Peeler, l., and J. GUtHrie. “Advertising and

Editorial Content: Laws, Ethics, and Market

Forces.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22, 4 (2007):

350–353.

Poitras, m., and d. sUtter. “Advertiser Pres-

sure and Control of the News: The Decline of

Muckracking Revisited.” Journal of Economic

Behavior & Organization 72, 3 (2009): 944–958.

Preston, i. l. “Interaction of Law and Ethics in

Matters of Advertisers’ Responsibility for Pro-

tecting Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Affairs

44, 1 (2010): 259–264.



Price, c. J. “Interfering Owners or Meddling

Advertisers: How Network Television News

Correspondents Feel About Ownership and

Advertiser Influence on News Stories.” Journal

of Media Economics 16, 3 (2003): 175–188.

raPPleye, c. “Cracking the Church-State Wall:

Early Results of the Revolution at the Los Ange-

les Times.” Columbia Journalism Review 36, 5

(1998): 20, 23.

reisner, a., and G. walter. “Journalists’

Views of Advertiser Pressures on Agricultural

News.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental

Ethics 7, 2 (1994): 157–172.

reUter, J., and e. zitzewitz. “Do Ads Influ-

ence Editors? Advertising and Bias in the Finan-

cial Media.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, 1

(2006): 197–227.

rinallo, d., and s. BasUroy. “Does Advertis-

ing Spending Influence Media Coverage of the

Advertiser?” Journal of Marketing 73, 6 (2009):

33–46.

rotzoll, K. B., and c. G. cHristians.

“Advertising Agency Practitioners’ Perceptions

of Ethical Decisions.” Journalism Quarterly 57, 3

(1980): 425–431.

roUner, d., m. slater, m. lonG, and l. staPel.

“The Relationship Between Editorial and

Advertising Content about Tobacco and Alco-

hol in United States Newspapers: An Explora-

tory Study.” Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly 86, 1 (2009): 103–118.

sanders, l., and J. Halliday. “BP Institutes

‘Ad-Pull’ Policy for Print Publications.” Ad

Age.com, May 24, 2005. Retrieved November

16, 2010, from [URL: http://www.adage.com/

news.cms?newsId=45132].

scHaeFer, d. r., and d. a. dillman. “Devel-

opment of a Standard E-Mail Methodology:

Results of an Experiment.” Public Opinion Quar-

terly 62, 3 (1993): 378–397.

sHaver, d. “Toward an Analytical Structure for

Evaluating the Ethical Content of Decisions by

Advertising Professionals.” Journal of Business

Ethics 48, 3 (2003): 291–300.

sHoemaKer, P. J., and s. d. reese. Mediating

the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media

Content. New York: Longman, 1991.

society oF ProFessional JoUrnalists. “Code

of Ethics.” Retrieved November 13, 2010,

from [URL: http://www.spj.org/pdf/

ethicscode.pdf].

soley, l. “‘The Power of the Press Has a Price’:

TV Reporters Talk About Advertiser Pressures.”

Extra!, (July/August 1997). Retrieved Novem-

ber 13, 2010, from [URL: http://www.fair.org/

extra/9707/ad-survey.html].

soley, l. Censorship, Inc.: The Corporate Threat

to Free Speech in the United States. New York:

Monthy Review, 2002.

soley, l. c., and r. l. craiG. “Advertiser Pres-

sures on Newspapers: A Survey.” Journal of

Advertising 21, 4 (1992): 1–10.

sPence, e. H., and B. van HeeKeren. Advertising

Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice

Hall, 2005.

sUtel, s. “Newspaper Editors Fret about

‘Shadow Ads.’” TheLedger.com, June 8,

2005. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from

[URL: http://www.theledger.com/apps/

pbcs.d11/article?AID=/20050608?NEWS/

506080329/1001/BUSINESS].

Underwood, d. “When MBAs Rule the News-

room.” Columbia Journalism Review 26, 6 (1998a):

23–30.

Underwood, d. “It’s Not Just L.A.” Columbia

Journalism Review 36, 5 (1998b): 24–26.

Underwood, d., and K. stamm. “Balancing

Business with Journalism: Newsroom Policies

at 12 West Coast Newspapers.” Journalism Quar-

terly 69, 2 (1992): 301–317.

victor, B., and J. B. cUllen. “The Organi-

zational Bases of Ethical Work Climates.”

Administrative Science Quarterly 33, 1 (1988):

101–125.

williams, w. s. “For Sale! Real Estate Adver-

tising and Editorial Decisions about Real Estate

News.” Newspaper Research Journal 13, 1/2

(1992): 160–169.

zacHary, G. P. “All the News? Many Jour-

nalists See a Growing Reluctance to Criticize

Advertisers.” Wall Street Journal, February 6,

1992.

Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

EFEKTIVITAS SISTEM SARINGAN MULTIMEDIA DALAM MENURUNKAN TSS, BOD, NH3-N , PO4 DAN TOTAL COLIFORM...

Documents

Transcript of EFEKTIVITAS SISTEM SARINGAN MULTIMEDIA DALAM MENURUNKAN TSS, BOD, NH3-N , PO4 DAN TOTAL COLIFORM...