1 00:00:01,320 --> 00:00:04,560 Speaker 1: Welcome back to Drill. I'm Amy Westervelt. I know we've 2 00:00:04,720 --> 00:00:09,959 Speaker 1: been away for a little bit. That's for two reasons. First, 3 00:00:10,119 --> 00:00:12,600 Speaker 1: I've been working on a book that's done at least 4 00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:15,920 Speaker 1: the first draft now. And second, we've been working on 5 00:00:16,920 --> 00:00:19,800 Speaker 1: a few different seasons for this year, so we've got 6 00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:23,439 Speaker 1: a lot of stuff coming your way today. An update 7 00:00:23,480 --> 00:00:27,360 Speaker 1: on something that we've covered a few times in the past, advertorials. 8 00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:32,760 Speaker 1: I'm joined by doctor Michelle Amazon from Boston University. Doctor 9 00:00:32,760 --> 00:00:36,960 Speaker 1: Amazone has done some of the best research on how 10 00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:42,120 Speaker 1: people actually take in information from advertorials, whether they're able 11 00:00:42,200 --> 00:00:47,120 Speaker 1: to differentiate between advertorial and editorial content, all that kind 12 00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:51,400 Speaker 1: of thing. She's just completed a new study looking at 13 00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:58,040 Speaker 1: how different interventions might work to help readers navigate an 14 00:00:58,160 --> 00:01:03,920 Speaker 1: information ecosystem that includes lots of advertorials. She particularly looked 15 00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:10,240 Speaker 1: at how labeling on social media could help people figure 16 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:15,360 Speaker 1: out what's what, and also whether surrounding these ads could 17 00:01:15,480 --> 00:01:20,520 Speaker 1: help people be inoculated to some of the misleading information 18 00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:23,880 Speaker 1: that's often included in them. It's a really interesting study 19 00:01:23,880 --> 00:01:26,920 Speaker 1: and we had a super interesting conversation to hope you 20 00:01:27,000 --> 00:01:27,479 Speaker 1: enjoy it. 21 00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:41,720 Speaker 2: I'd love to know just a little bit of the 22 00:01:41,760 --> 00:01:47,160 Speaker 2: background on what prompted you guys to undertake this study, 23 00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:49,080 Speaker 2: What made you think, Okay, we need to look at 24 00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:50,880 Speaker 2: what might be done about this stuff. 25 00:01:51,400 --> 00:01:58,200 Speaker 3: Yeah. So, I have been studying persuasion and misinformation for 26 00:01:58,440 --> 00:02:06,440 Speaker 3: probably a decade now, and I started looking into native advertisements, 27 00:02:06,800 --> 00:02:10,320 Speaker 3: just broadly, not specific to the fossil fuel industry. I 28 00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:14,400 Speaker 3: published a number of studies about the use of native advertising, 29 00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:18,280 Speaker 3: how difficult it is for the public to be able 30 00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:23,400 Speaker 3: to identify native advertising and distinguish it from news reporting, 31 00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:26,840 Speaker 3: news articles, and I think at one point I had 32 00:02:26,880 --> 00:02:33,240 Speaker 3: a study where I contrasted two native advertisements. One was 33 00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:38,480 Speaker 3: from I think it was Colhan, so it was a 34 00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:43,720 Speaker 3: fashion designer that ad was kind of imitating, mimicking soft news. 35 00:02:44,160 --> 00:02:50,800 Speaker 3: The alternative native advertisement was from Chevron, which was examining 36 00:02:51,040 --> 00:02:55,080 Speaker 3: global energy consumption, and that was more hard news oriented, 37 00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:58,560 Speaker 3: And so the study looked at the differences between the 38 00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:03,480 Speaker 3: two of those how difficult it was for consumers to 39 00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:07,760 Speaker 3: recognize that this was commercial content and not genuine news reporting. 40 00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:12,360 Speaker 3: And that got me thinking, okay, well, how dangerous is 41 00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:17,880 Speaker 3: it for fashion retailers to be using native advertisement compared 42 00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:23,840 Speaker 3: to companies such as Chevron and other fossil fuel providers 43 00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:29,200 Speaker 3: leveraging it. And so that's what got me thinking about 44 00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:34,240 Speaker 3: who is using this type of advertising strategy. And I 45 00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:38,320 Speaker 3: live in Massachusetts, and I was aware that in twenty eighteen, 46 00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:43,760 Speaker 3: our state Attorney General sued Exxon for the claims they 47 00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:49,760 Speaker 3: were making in their advertisements. And I noticed that one 48 00:03:49,800 --> 00:03:54,440 Speaker 3: of the exhibits in the lawsuit was a native advertisement 49 00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:59,800 Speaker 3: that was created by T Brand Studio, and so I 50 00:03:59,840 --> 00:04:03,480 Speaker 3: think that was the impetus. So I've continued to do 51 00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:07,680 Speaker 3: more studies on this. I've been working on a book. 52 00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:11,080 Speaker 3: I have a book coming out from MIT Press later 53 00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:18,880 Speaker 3: this year about native advertising. And it became apparent that 54 00:04:18,960 --> 00:04:23,000 Speaker 3: it wasn't just happening in Massachusetts. You know, there's many 55 00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:27,160 Speaker 3: states and municipalities who have brought forth these types of lawsuits, 56 00:04:27,360 --> 00:04:29,920 Speaker 3: but there's not a whole lot of concrete evidence as 57 00:04:29,960 --> 00:04:35,720 Speaker 3: to what exactly the impacts are. And so we decided, well, 58 00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:37,400 Speaker 3: let's see if we can tease that out. 59 00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:42,200 Speaker 2: It's interesting because I've written about the native advertising stuff 60 00:04:42,200 --> 00:04:44,840 Speaker 2: a bit and cited your research, so thank you. And 61 00:04:45,400 --> 00:04:48,359 Speaker 2: actually the last time I wrote about it, I talked 62 00:04:48,440 --> 00:04:50,440 Speaker 2: to someone that you know, was doing this stuff, but 63 00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:53,080 Speaker 2: probably not as much as other outlets, and so the 64 00:04:53,279 --> 00:04:55,919 Speaker 2: question was sort of like, why why continue to do it? 65 00:04:55,960 --> 00:04:59,120 Speaker 2: And the thing that really resonated with her the most 66 00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:01,640 Speaker 2: because a lot of times newsrooms will just sort of say, oh, well, 67 00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:04,880 Speaker 2: you know, we have a wall between an edit and 68 00:05:05,520 --> 00:05:09,000 Speaker 2: the advertisers aren't influencing our reporting and all that kind 69 00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:11,000 Speaker 2: of stuff, And I said, yeah, but that's not really 70 00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:13,800 Speaker 2: the concern. The concern is that readers confuse these things 71 00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:17,320 Speaker 2: for each other. And I pointed her to the studies 72 00:05:17,360 --> 00:05:19,120 Speaker 2: that have been done on that, and that was the 73 00:05:19,120 --> 00:05:23,839 Speaker 2: thing where she was like, oh really, Yeah, so it 74 00:05:23,880 --> 00:05:27,360 Speaker 2: does seem like something that at least some newsrooms might 75 00:05:27,360 --> 00:05:31,880 Speaker 2: be looking for ways to minimize. But I wanted to 76 00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:35,120 Speaker 2: ask you about the experiment that you ran, was kind 77 00:05:35,160 --> 00:05:36,840 Speaker 2: of mimicking a social media feed? 78 00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:37,160 Speaker 3: Right? 79 00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:38,880 Speaker 2: Is that accurate to say? 80 00:05:39,640 --> 00:05:40,039 Speaker 3: Correct? 81 00:05:40,120 --> 00:05:45,480 Speaker 2: Yeah, And maybe I could have you walk through the 82 00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:50,960 Speaker 2: two possible interventions that people were seeing in their feed 83 00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:55,000 Speaker 2: and why you decided to look at those two things 84 00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:55,800 Speaker 2: in particular. 85 00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:59,480 Speaker 3: Yeah, so I can preface it with the reason why 86 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:06,000 Speaker 3: we choose to format this as a social media post 87 00:06:07,240 --> 00:06:11,839 Speaker 3: is because not only do these native ads live on 88 00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:20,839 Speaker 3: the news organizations websites, but oftentimes these news organizations that 89 00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:25,360 Speaker 3: are creating these ads, it's not an external ad agency, 90 00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:30,040 Speaker 3: it's these in house content studios that are creating it. 91 00:06:30,839 --> 00:06:38,280 Speaker 3: Often they are contractually obligated to amplify these native advertisements, 92 00:06:39,000 --> 00:06:42,400 Speaker 3: meaning it's not just residing on their websites, but the 93 00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:48,920 Speaker 3: news organizations have to amplify these ads on their social 94 00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:53,640 Speaker 3: media sites. And what some of my previous research has 95 00:06:53,720 --> 00:06:59,920 Speaker 3: shown is that when native advertisements are shared on social media, 96 00:07:00,240 --> 00:07:04,320 Speaker 3: frequently the disclosures that are required by the Federal Trade 97 00:07:04,360 --> 00:07:08,760 Speaker 3: Commission that distinguish them as commercial content. Half the time 98 00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:14,640 Speaker 3: those disclosures disappear. And they are supposed to stick with. 99 00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:18,280 Speaker 3: They're supposed to travel with the native advertisement no matter 100 00:07:18,320 --> 00:07:20,120 Speaker 3: where it appears oh interesting. 101 00:07:20,160 --> 00:07:22,600 Speaker 2: So when it shows up on social that like paid 102 00:07:22,600 --> 00:07:24,840 Speaker 2: for by thing there. 103 00:07:24,880 --> 00:07:28,960 Speaker 3: Wow, all the time it disappears wow. So that's why 104 00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:31,880 Speaker 3: we decided to Okay, well, let's show this in a 105 00:07:31,920 --> 00:07:38,320 Speaker 3: social media feed format. I do have to acknowledge that 106 00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:42,760 Speaker 3: the New York Times, for the most part, they follow 107 00:07:42,800 --> 00:07:47,400 Speaker 3: the rules. They're labeling is good in terms of having 108 00:07:47,600 --> 00:07:52,040 Speaker 3: labeling or disclosures, and they generally stay with the content 109 00:07:52,520 --> 00:07:55,880 Speaker 3: when it appears on social media, so I want to 110 00:07:55,920 --> 00:07:58,960 Speaker 3: be sure that that's clear because in this study we 111 00:07:59,040 --> 00:08:03,520 Speaker 3: are focusing on a New York Times creative ad, but 112 00:08:04,640 --> 00:08:08,440 Speaker 3: they could make their disclosures more prominent, they could use 113 00:08:08,560 --> 00:08:12,360 Speaker 3: more clear language. We adopted the language that the New 114 00:08:12,440 --> 00:08:16,360 Speaker 3: York Time uses, which is paid post, So that was 115 00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:21,120 Speaker 3: one of the interventions, is the disclosure. The New York 116 00:08:21,160 --> 00:08:25,760 Speaker 3: Times uses the language paid post, which not everybody knows 117 00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:30,960 Speaker 3: what that means, and that is one of the challenges 118 00:08:31,040 --> 00:08:36,200 Speaker 3: of the current regulation of native advertising is that the 119 00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:40,559 Speaker 3: FTC does not require any sort of standardization in terms 120 00:08:40,559 --> 00:08:44,760 Speaker 3: of what the disclosures say, so the news outlet can 121 00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:49,679 Speaker 3: call it whatever they want and they do so that 122 00:08:49,720 --> 00:08:52,559 Speaker 3: makes it more confusing for the public when one outlet 123 00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:56,120 Speaker 3: is calling it this, another outlet is calling it something else, 124 00:08:56,200 --> 00:09:00,360 Speaker 3: and so forth. So one of the interventions we had 125 00:09:00,640 --> 00:09:05,040 Speaker 3: was the disclosure, and since this was an experiment, we 126 00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:10,000 Speaker 3: had certain people who saw the disclosure and then other 127 00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:13,000 Speaker 3: people we did not show them the disclosure, So that 128 00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:16,559 Speaker 3: was one of our manipulations. And then the other intervention 129 00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:21,360 Speaker 3: we looked at was what we call an inoculation message, 130 00:09:22,320 --> 00:09:27,200 Speaker 3: so it was a forewarning about the type of content 131 00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:32,920 Speaker 3: that people may see in their social media feeds, and 132 00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:36,720 Speaker 3: we had it, We had the source of that message 133 00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:42,360 Speaker 3: as the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterrez, and you just 134 00:09:42,440 --> 00:09:48,960 Speaker 3: basically talked about what's happening with the climate emergency and 135 00:09:49,320 --> 00:09:52,679 Speaker 3: warning people to make sure the information that you see 136 00:09:52,840 --> 00:09:56,400 Speaker 3: that you rely on on social media from credible sources 137 00:09:56,800 --> 00:10:01,160 Speaker 3: who have relevant expertise and who aren't motivating to greenwash 138 00:10:01,280 --> 00:10:07,880 Speaker 3: their activities or to cherry pick data, so essentially encouraging 139 00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:10,760 Speaker 3: people to be media literate. So that was the other intervention. 140 00:10:10,960 --> 00:10:15,880 Speaker 3: Some people saw those messages, other people did not. Those 141 00:10:15,920 --> 00:10:18,679 Speaker 3: were the people in our control group. That people in 142 00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:25,199 Speaker 3: the control group, they saw a social media post about sushi, 143 00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:30,240 Speaker 3: which sounds kind of random, but in the academic literature 144 00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:33,760 Speaker 3: that has been used many times. 145 00:10:33,520 --> 00:10:35,400 Speaker 2: Before, that's so funny. 146 00:10:36,800 --> 00:10:40,240 Speaker 3: Yeah, And then that was so first there was either 147 00:10:40,280 --> 00:10:45,400 Speaker 3: the inoculation message or forewarning or the control message. And 148 00:10:45,440 --> 00:10:54,360 Speaker 3: then people then saw the native advertisement from ExxonMobil, So 149 00:10:54,679 --> 00:10:58,720 Speaker 3: either the one with the disclosure or the one without 150 00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:02,640 Speaker 3: the disclosure. Those were the treatment groups, the two treatment groups, 151 00:11:02,800 --> 00:11:04,760 Speaker 3: and then there was a third group that was again 152 00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:09,160 Speaker 3: the control group who instead of seeing the native advertisement. 153 00:11:09,600 --> 00:11:12,920 Speaker 3: They just saw a social media post about a restaurant review, 154 00:11:13,280 --> 00:11:18,120 Speaker 3: which is anonymous, and it was they we blurred out 155 00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:18,760 Speaker 3: the name of the. 156 00:11:18,760 --> 00:11:22,160 Speaker 2: Restaurant just because it didn't really matter. Do you have 157 00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:27,160 Speaker 2: a sense of how well these things work on social 158 00:11:27,320 --> 00:11:32,079 Speaker 2: versus on the outlet's own website. I'm just thinking, like, Okay, 159 00:11:32,200 --> 00:11:34,120 Speaker 2: I'm a climate reporter, have been for a long time. 160 00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:38,679 Speaker 2: My own mother still occasionally sends me native as articles 161 00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:41,720 Speaker 2: that she's seen on climate. Yeah, I mean. 162 00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:46,559 Speaker 3: I believe that. So I opened my book with a 163 00:11:46,679 --> 00:11:53,120 Speaker 3: vignette about me grading my students' papers one of them, 164 00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:56,359 Speaker 3: not one of them, a handful of them. We're citing 165 00:11:56,559 --> 00:12:02,880 Speaker 3: a native advertisement they saw. Yeah, so I'm shocked, and 166 00:12:02,960 --> 00:12:06,360 Speaker 3: I'm trying to figure out how did they how did 167 00:12:06,400 --> 00:12:10,040 Speaker 3: this happen? And well, I won't give away the story. 168 00:12:10,080 --> 00:12:11,360 Speaker 3: You'll have to get my book. 169 00:12:11,679 --> 00:12:14,400 Speaker 2: Yeah, oh wow, that's fascinating. 170 00:12:14,960 --> 00:12:17,800 Speaker 3: Yes, So, I mean even you know, it's it's everybody. 171 00:12:17,800 --> 00:12:22,480 Speaker 3: It's college students, it's it's senior citizens, it's it's even 172 00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:25,160 Speaker 3: college professors who get fooled by this stuff. 173 00:12:25,640 --> 00:12:29,600 Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Okay. On the it sounds to me like 174 00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:33,439 Speaker 2: from the results of your study, the inoculation messages work 175 00:12:33,760 --> 00:12:37,600 Speaker 2: much better than the like the disclosures are necessary and 176 00:12:37,640 --> 00:12:40,400 Speaker 2: should you know and should and could be much more 177 00:12:41,080 --> 00:12:44,840 Speaker 2: large and prominent, but the inoculation messages seem to be 178 00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:46,720 Speaker 2: much more effective. 179 00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:51,320 Speaker 3: Their functions are slightly different the disclosure. The function of 180 00:12:51,360 --> 00:12:56,160 Speaker 3: that is to allow people to recognize that the content 181 00:12:56,320 --> 00:13:02,440 Speaker 3: is commercial in nature, whereas the inoculation and is supposed 182 00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:06,199 Speaker 3: to make people more resilient to influence. 183 00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:09,400 Speaker 2: Okay, Okay, So I can see how that would work 184 00:13:09,440 --> 00:13:14,040 Speaker 2: on social I wonder how it would work on a 185 00:13:14,080 --> 00:13:16,720 Speaker 2: website and whether you've looked at that at all, because 186 00:13:16,760 --> 00:13:20,760 Speaker 2: I know sometimes these ads will intentionally be run next 187 00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:26,160 Speaker 2: to like legit reporting, and I'm thinking especially around the 188 00:13:26,160 --> 00:13:29,720 Speaker 2: potential of carbon capture, Like they'll often run this native 189 00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:32,120 Speaker 2: ad that's like very positive about the potential of carbon 190 00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:35,400 Speaker 2: capture right next to a reported piece that's like pretty critical, 191 00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:38,360 Speaker 2: and it has the effect sometimes I think of people thinking, oh, 192 00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:40,960 Speaker 2: like there's two sides to the story or whatever, like 193 00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:42,840 Speaker 2: there's the juries out but right. 194 00:13:43,120 --> 00:13:46,240 Speaker 3: Or sometimes they'll even sponsor a newsletter, like there's a 195 00:13:46,280 --> 00:13:49,880 Speaker 3: lot of environmental newsletters that are sponsored by a fossil 196 00:13:49,920 --> 00:13:54,480 Speaker 3: fuel property Yeah, so I don't think I've designed any 197 00:13:54,520 --> 00:13:59,480 Speaker 3: studies to test that, but I agree with your conjecture 198 00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:02,240 Speaker 3: that that probably muddies the waters for. 199 00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:07,280 Speaker 2: Consumers. I wonder if you have talked to any outlets 200 00:14:07,280 --> 00:14:10,360 Speaker 2: in your research about how much might they be willing 201 00:14:10,480 --> 00:14:15,840 Speaker 2: to do to counteract the potentially negative impacts of these ads. 202 00:14:15,960 --> 00:14:18,760 Speaker 2: I don't know if you've heard anything from them on 203 00:14:18,800 --> 00:14:19,320 Speaker 2: that front. 204 00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:22,120 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I mean, I guess who were you talking to. 205 00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:25,680 Speaker 3: I mean, I've talked to reporters like climate reporters. 206 00:14:25,800 --> 00:14:29,160 Speaker 2: Yeah, climate reporters buy and large really want their outlets 207 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:30,280 Speaker 2: to do something about this. 208 00:14:30,560 --> 00:14:33,800 Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, many of them are quite a guest at 209 00:14:33,840 --> 00:14:38,200 Speaker 3: what's happening, and some of them have actually left their 210 00:14:38,480 --> 00:14:45,920 Speaker 3: employer because the employer is accepting fossil fuel money and 211 00:14:45,960 --> 00:14:51,200 Speaker 3: creating ads around them. I've also talked to reporters who 212 00:14:52,800 --> 00:14:58,680 Speaker 3: have talked to people from the content studio, the people 213 00:14:58,680 --> 00:15:03,320 Speaker 3: from the content studio, the product marketers or whatever you 214 00:15:03,320 --> 00:15:06,680 Speaker 3: want to refer to them, as they will try and 215 00:15:06,720 --> 00:15:11,240 Speaker 3: talk with reporters to coordinate to find out what they're 216 00:15:11,240 --> 00:15:17,320 Speaker 3: writing about. So, despite that presumed firewall between the newsroom 217 00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:22,040 Speaker 3: and the business side of things, it's very porous, and 218 00:15:22,640 --> 00:15:27,960 Speaker 3: you know, the reporters don't have much recourse, right, they 219 00:15:27,960 --> 00:15:31,640 Speaker 3: can leave if they don't like it. Yeah, in terms 220 00:15:31,680 --> 00:15:35,040 Speaker 3: of them saying to management, oh, we need to make 221 00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:38,680 Speaker 3: these more clear, we need to make native advertisements more clear, 222 00:15:39,760 --> 00:15:43,440 Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, Jill Abramson got forced out 223 00:15:43,480 --> 00:15:46,080 Speaker 3: of The New York Times because in part she thought 224 00:15:46,160 --> 00:15:50,200 Speaker 3: native advertising was a bad idea. And another point is 225 00:15:50,240 --> 00:15:53,440 Speaker 3: that years ago, I believe it was the New York 226 00:15:53,520 --> 00:15:59,280 Speaker 3: Times they swore off. They committed that they would no 227 00:15:59,360 --> 00:16:05,000 Speaker 3: longer take tobacco industry ad dollars any kind. Yeah, but 228 00:16:05,600 --> 00:16:11,240 Speaker 3: in twenty twenty one, Philip Morris International came back to them, 229 00:16:11,520 --> 00:16:13,600 Speaker 3: came back to a lot of the majors that the 230 00:16:13,680 --> 00:16:17,840 Speaker 3: legacy media in the US, and ran a native advertising campaign, 231 00:16:17,920 --> 00:16:21,080 Speaker 3: not about cigarettes, but about their what do they call it, 232 00:16:21,440 --> 00:16:23,680 Speaker 3: tobacco harm reduction efforts. 233 00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:27,119 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's right. And some people. 234 00:16:26,880 --> 00:16:29,040 Speaker 3: Pointed out, wait a minute, the New York Times and 235 00:16:29,080 --> 00:16:32,920 Speaker 3: the Boston Globe are carrying this. They had committed that 236 00:16:32,920 --> 00:16:36,720 Speaker 3: they would no longer take tobacco money, and how they're 237 00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:41,040 Speaker 3: violating it. So I don't know how strong these commitments 238 00:16:41,080 --> 00:16:42,160 Speaker 3: are when they make them. 239 00:16:42,440 --> 00:16:44,560 Speaker 2: I just have one more question for you. I know 240 00:16:44,640 --> 00:16:47,600 Speaker 2: that the social media platforms themselves have been very resistant 241 00:16:47,640 --> 00:16:52,360 Speaker 2: to any kind of labeling or content moderation or things 242 00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:56,240 Speaker 2: like that. Increasingly so in the last six months, I know, 243 00:16:56,320 --> 00:17:00,960 Speaker 2: I've seen people saying that even just the like verifiable 244 00:17:01,400 --> 00:17:06,280 Speaker 2: information kind of labels our censorship. So I'm curious for 245 00:17:06,359 --> 00:17:08,600 Speaker 2: your take on that. And i know that, you know, 246 00:17:08,680 --> 00:17:11,920 Speaker 2: even research like yours is being targeted as sort of 247 00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:16,280 Speaker 2: like censorship, So I'm curious what you think about that. Yeah. 248 00:17:16,320 --> 00:17:22,400 Speaker 3: So I actually fielded a quick poll in January after 249 00:17:22,440 --> 00:17:26,000 Speaker 3: Mark Zuckerberg made his statement about getting rid of the 250 00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:30,399 Speaker 3: third party fact checking and found that I think it 251 00:17:30,440 --> 00:17:37,000 Speaker 3: was two thirds of Americans do want content moderation on 252 00:17:37,080 --> 00:17:40,760 Speaker 3: social media, and the majority of them think that fact 253 00:17:40,880 --> 00:17:48,560 Speaker 3: checking is beneficial, and they were significantly us favorable towards 254 00:17:49,560 --> 00:17:53,359 Speaker 3: what did he call it, community notes, Right, that's what 255 00:17:53,440 --> 00:17:56,320 Speaker 3: he was going to pivot. So, I mean, we have evidence. 256 00:17:56,640 --> 00:17:58,679 Speaker 3: I mean, not that there was any question that that 257 00:17:58,800 --> 00:18:01,879 Speaker 3: Zuckerberg was doing this for any reason other than to 258 00:18:02,040 --> 00:18:10,480 Speaker 3: bend to the new administration. Nonetheless, here's empirical evidence suggesting 259 00:18:10,800 --> 00:18:16,840 Speaker 3: that the public wants these sorts of labels. Yeah, you know, 260 00:18:16,960 --> 00:18:18,200 Speaker 3: it's not censorship. 261 00:18:18,720 --> 00:18:19,480 Speaker 2: Yeah. 262 00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:22,640 Speaker 3: Yeah. You can still access the content, right. 263 00:18:22,480 --> 00:18:25,200 Speaker 2: You can still read it, you just have some context 264 00:18:25,359 --> 00:18:28,200 Speaker 2: for it, all right. Thank you so much for taking 265 00:18:28,240 --> 00:18:28,720 Speaker 2: the time. 266 00:18:28,800 --> 00:18:30,399 Speaker 3: Well, thank you so much. Amy. 267 00:18:34,760 --> 00:18:38,040 Speaker 1: That's it for this week, Thanks for listening. In case 268 00:18:38,080 --> 00:18:40,720 Speaker 1: you missed it, last year we did a pretty exhaustive 269 00:18:41,119 --> 00:18:46,119 Speaker 1: report on adveritorials, looking at which outlets were making the 270 00:18:46,160 --> 00:18:49,520 Speaker 1: most of them for fossil fuel companies, how much money 271 00:18:49,520 --> 00:18:53,160 Speaker 1: they were making, and what various researchers had to say 272 00:18:53,160 --> 00:18:56,760 Speaker 1: about that, including Doctor Amazine. You can find that on 273 00:18:56,800 --> 00:19:01,000 Speaker 1: our website Drilled dot Media, along with lots of other coverage. 274 00:19:01,880 --> 00:19:05,960 Speaker 1: Our producer this week is Peter duff Our. Music is 275 00:19:06,119 --> 00:19:10,199 Speaker 1: Bird in the Hand by Foreknown. Thanksgin for insting, and 276 00:19:10,280 --> 00:19:11,240 Speaker 1: we'll see you next time.