Elect Amy Hacala

My friend Amy is running for public office. Well, she's already an elected official at the local level, but she has now set her sights higher and is running in the territorial election.

Take a look at her site. It's great: she has to be the most transparent candidate so far. I love the fact that she has a platform and is clear about her vision for the territory.

Go, Amy, go!

My favourite protest song

I've got a fever and the only cure is MORE COWBELL

Yes, I am a Saturday Night Live fan. I've seen at least a bit of the show every Saturday night that I was near a television since 1991, which is still my favourite season. Every September, I struggle through getting to know a new cast, and I read the newspaper reviews that announce that SNL is horrible now and was much, much better five years earlier (it is almost as if they do not read five-year-old articles in their own papers).

I like Saturday Night Live because each week offers new possibilities. If the host's any good at all, the show will play to his strengths and will be unique: I know I'll see something I wouldn't have seen anywhere else. If the host's lousy, I simply go to bed. I can save time by figuring out who the host is in advance. If it's an athlete, I don't bother with the opening credits. I still don't understand why the bookers think athletes can do sketch comedy, but they've been booking these guys for years so obviously there's a reason.

Over the years, I've become less impressed by the musical guests. This is at least partly because I do not like boy bands, but it's also because the guests themselves seem uninterested in their own music. Barring an Ashlee-Simpson-style mishap (which was even more enjoyable live than on YouTube), I can look forward to three and a half minutes of some moron standing there mumbling into a microphone, playing the same three chords over and over, and looking bored. I blame this guy:



(Yes, that's Phil Collins playing drums.)

This sort of thing makes lousy musicians think they can pull off the same trick. They play a few notes over and over and think they've got a song. If the great guitarists can do it, why not everyone else?

And so last weekend we found ourselves watching Beck sing a song that was so boring I can't even remember it. The best part was that one member of his backup band appeared to be on crystal meth and was flailing around. At one point he pulled out a cowbell and started banging on it. Unfortunately -- and you aspiring musicians should write this down -- if you want to use cowbell in your live shows, you really should bang on it near a microphone. Otherwise, nobody will be able to hear it and all of your efforts will be for nothing.

Happy birthday, Matt

Uncle Bruce makes my day

God, this is SO EMBARRASSING

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: You know my editor's forcing me to ask this, right?

A few days ago, I had a truly awful conversation with a reporter.

REPORTER: We heard that the jail was hit by lightning.

ME: No, a transformer was knocked out very briefly. The back-up generator kicked in right away.

REPORTER: So the power didn't go out?

ME: No.

REPORTER: Not even for a little while?

ME: There might have been a flicker as the lights came back on.

REPORTER: What do you mean?

ME: Have you ever been in a building when a generator kicks in? There's a flicker as the power goes out, then everything comes back on right away.

REPORTER: So I guess the power was only out for a few seconds.

ME: Less than that. Half a second, maybe, if that. It wouldn't even have been noticeable. We have a pretty amazing generator.

REPORTER: My editor says I have to do a story about this. Why do you have such a powerful generator?

ME: (I started to laugh openly at this point.) Because it's a jail.

REPORTER: How long have you had it? When did you realise that you needed it?

ME: (I continued to laugh.) Are you serious? Is it that slow of a news day? Really, it wasn't noticeable.

Naturally, I was quoted in the next day's paper, 1) saying that the jail had indeed been hit by lightning, and 2) bragging about the amazing generator. Fortunately, I still have a sense of humour about all of this. Before I get started, I will confirm that jails do indeed have back-up generators, as do hospitals, large stores, and many other buildings that need to keep the power on for any number of reasons. In this new-media world, it's important to break this kind of exciting news on the Internet.

In the world of journalism, reporters are at the bottom of the heap. The editor has total control, and in a small media organization there is nobody to appeal to. A reporter who's been around for a while can work his way up through the pile, but new guys don't even have a chance. They are ordered to do certain stories, and they must deliver. They usually don't dare to tell the editor that his great ideas are not really any good.

Think how exciting it would be if the jail really HAD been hit by lightning! That would be a great cover photo -- naturally, it would have to be a photo illustration created on a computer, but I can totally see it already. It's pitch black outside, but the scene is starkly illuminated by the single bolt of lightning that is running straight from the sky into the jail. The building has been electrified and is literally glowing. Inside, all of the inmates look up in shock and horror as the lights go down. Then their faces light up as the electric locks pop open. The inmates run off into the night, leaving the guards to chase them on foot over the tundra.

What a GREAT story! Thwarted only by the amazing back-up generator and the fact that the jail was not actually hit by lightning!

Reporters are paid to find great stories. They DREAM of finding great stories. Unfortunately, life is not usually quite so interesting. Life is full of intricacies and yes-buts and it's-a-bit-more-complicated-than-thats. These do not play so well on the evening news. The editor needs to deliver a certain number of eyeballs to advertisers, so he's always looking for something to draw people in. Reporters with a few years of experience are usually allowed to find their own stories, but a newbie can be forced to "chase" whatever the editor thinks might have happened. These reporters are usually embarrassed when they call: they know their questions are amazingly stupid and they can't believe they are being forced to ask them. Often, they will make it very clear that they do not want to ask these questions.

Some of my recent favourites from the last few years (covering several employers/clients):

• Is my employer splitting in half? Someone thinks we're getting rid of furniture, so obviously we're splitting. (Answer: No. And we're not getting rid of furniture.)
  
• If it's smoky outside, what should people do if the smoke bothers them? (Answer: Stay inside with the windows closed.)
• Have we made a deal with a multi-national corporation that will affect everyone in Canada either directly or indirectly? (Answer: No. If we make that sort of deal, we'll be excited enough to let you know.)

My dear readers, I'm curious: Do you get similar questions? Do reporters ever call you, mutter an apology, and ask if your CEO is an alien who's trying to take over the province through a combination of gum disease and plantar warts?

You know that ghost is me

Hughie misses Rory

Trading spaces

Free communications advice to CBC management

My hair is like a flock of goats

(Somehow I remember that being a compliment. Perhaps there's a problem with the translation.)

I've been growing my hair out for almost a year. This has been a long ride, and my hair is still not even long enough to put in a ponytail. (I started with very short, spiky hair.)

Fortunately, my mom has introduced me to a website that can motivate me through the dark times. Call it the SELF Challenge for hair, except it's Clairol. I am guessing that they consider it a marketing tool, but really, it's just plain fun.

First, you need a photo of yourself. I don't take pictures of myself, so I pulled this screenshot off my latest vlog:
I'm not getting ready to kiss you; I'm in mid-sentence as usual.

As you can see, my current hair colour is pretty boring. Also, the style is not going to get me on Jay Leno any time soon. This is where Clairol can help. I can imagine myself as a redheaded porn star:
Hot diggity, this could be all I need to jump-start my career as a Hoffette! But there are other choices, too. For example, all-over hair colour is so 90s. Today's hair design is all about highlights and lowlights:
Until now, I've never seen the value of maintaining twelve different shades of red in my hair. But now Clairol has opened my eyes and shown me how truly hot I could be.

There's a lot at stake. If I don't maintain an age-appropriate number of colours in my hair, I might as well give in and get Newfoundland Mom Hair:
Yeah, I think we can all agree that that's not a great idea. But you know what I think MIGHT be coming back in style? Perms.
I actually did have hair like this when I was 13. (I was super hot.)

You are OURS. We OWN you.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: How NOT to set up a blogging policy.

It's funny that I'm about to criticise CBC for its new blogging policy “guideline document.” CBC employees have been asking for some direction about blogging for quite some time now. When none came, a few of them proposed the CBC Blogging Manifesto. They signed their names (well, except "Ouimet", who blogs under a pseudonym because as management, he'd be fired if anyone finds out who he is). I don't know everyone on the list, but I respect those I do know. I thought the manifesto was a great start, but essentially forgot about it when nothing seemed to come of it.

Well, there's a new policy “guideline document” that's been posted to the Web. My comments are in bold text.

Personal Blogging – Guidelines for CBC/Radio-Canada Employees

As the internet becomes an even more important part of people’s lives, the popularity of blogging will increase. Blogging is becoming a form of public conversation on the internet in which CBC employees may wish to take part.

True! I agree with this. That last sentence is a bit clunky -- I would have reworded it -- but I agree with the sentiment. Usually "Internet" is capitalized, but still, this isn't bad.

These guidelines apply to any personal blogging or other self-publishing such as podcasting by CBC/Radio-Canada employees if the content clearly associates them with CBC/Radio-Canada. They apply not only to CBC/Radio-Canada journalists but to any corporation employee.

I think I need some clarification on what it means to clearly associate yourself with CBC. There's a difference between running an official blog and running a personal blog that occasionally mentions where you work. I've got over 600 posts. This blog isn't about my work, but work's a big part of my life. I don't think I've ever named my current employer, mostly because it's not interesting or important, but I've mentioned projects from time to time. I've also been pretty clear that I'm in the communications business. Have I "clearly associated" myself with anyone? Actually, I think the only employer I've ever mentioned by name is the CBC itself.

Hmmm. ANY employee? Well, that cuts out any confusion about who they expect to follow this, but I'm hesitant to apply journalistic standards to janitors, set designers and PR people, especially when they're, um, NOT AT WORK.

When bloggers clearly identify themselves as CBC/Radio-Canada employees, they are expected to behave in a way that is consistent with our journalistic philosophy, editorial values and corporate policies.

I would agree with this if it said "When bloggers clearly identify themselves as blogging on behalf of CBC/Radio-Canada...". This is sort of like your office's dress code. Your boss can tell you that a ripped T-shirt's not acceptable for the office, but you can wear the same shirt to the store even if the checkout clerk knows where you work.

Such blogging should be done on an employee’s own time, posted through a personal e-mail address and not channeled through CBC/Radio-Canada’s e-mail system.

I agree with this, although in practice, it really shouldn't matter if someone occasionally blogs at his desk over his lunch hour. I think this is trying to say the same thing as those annoying Technology Policies that really boil down to "don't waste too much time at work, OK?". Your personal blog should use your personal e-mail address, not your work e-mail. Work time is for work. That sounds reasonable.

These blogs are expected to adhere to the principles outlined in CBC/Radio-Canada Human Resources policies regarding Outside Work, Advocacy and Opinion, Conflict of Interest and the Code of Conduct.

Excellent. Yes, CBC already has several policies for employee conduct that appear to be working just fine.

To start and maintain a blog of this kind, you need your supervisor’s approval.

Whoa. What kind? This comes right after the bit about adhering to existing policies, so Little Miss Know-it-All assumes that that's what this sentence refers to. You still need your supervisor's approval if you're playing it safe?

The blog cannot advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion. It should also avoid controversial subjects or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.

Yikes. That's awfully vague. What's a group? Does a quilting bee count? Is family violence a "cause"? "Partisan political opinion" is vague too -- clearly, campaigning for a federal party is not on, but what about advocating on behalf of Jill Carroll or Alan Johnston?

CBC/Radio-Canada material such as pre-interviews, interviews, research, etc. created or developed while doing your job is the property of CBC/Radio-Canada and can only be used with your supervisor’s permission.

Boy, that sounds reasonable...wait a minute, what's a "pre-interview"? And what's "research"? Those things can be pretty fluid when you work for CBC. You do tons of stuff that never makes it to air. You talk to lots of people about ideas that aren't good enough to fit the "someone doing something for a reason" rule. This can be a formal taped interview that never goes anywhere, or it can be a quick conversation in the coffee shop.

Program blogs or other “official” CBC publications are not addressed here and can only be designed and launched with the approval of the appropriate supervisor. Blogs or websites which do not identify the bloggers as a CBC/Radio-Canada employee, do not discuss CBC/Radio-Canada and are purely about personal matters would normally fall outside these guidelines.

Well, I certainly hope so!

If you are uncertain about any of this, please have a conversation with your supervisor to clear it up.

This is indeed the best way to end a policy “guideline document” like this one. However, the standard way to deal with this is to talk to supervisors first to make sure they actually CAN answer questions. It's a good idea to talk to staff first, too, instead of just dropping something like this on them.

This is far too vague to be of any use at all. It could include just about anyone who works for CBC and blogs about anything. I'm guessing that's the point: cast the net as wide as possible so you always have a policy “guideline document” to point to when your staff piss you off. In real life, there is no way anyone will be enforcing these rules. No manager has time to monitor the Internet on top of regular programming.

Feel it on my fingertips, hear it on my window pane

The rest of you will be kept in prison, so that your words may be tested

A reader asked about my demographics compared to Uriel's, so I will elaborate:

Here are the last 100 hits on Uriel's blog. There's a definite cluster near New England; you can't see it on this map, but I can tell that many of these visitors are coming from universities: Yale, Salem State and some educational facility in Winchester. Apart from that cluster, all parts of the States appear to be represented: Flint, Michigan; Tarpon Springs, Florida; Woodland, California. She has a few readers in Canada: Penticton (hmmm), Brandon, Napanee. Across the Atlantic, you can see visitors from the Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland and England. Near the bottom right: Australia, the Philippines and Fiji.

Now, my readership is not nearly as eclectic:

I've cut out the other parts of the world because, let's face it, nobody from there is interested in anything I have to say. I have several readers who share the same URL (for example, everyone who uses a CBC computer is represented by that dot over Ottawa, no matter where they work) and several readers in the same town (Name of Town Withheld, Victoria, Toronto, Edmonton) who also share dots. I do not have many American visitors other than my immediate family: although they are loyal readers, I don't appear to have caught on south of the border. Apparently my brand of grammar analysis and David Hasselhoff worship is not valued internationally in the age of Dancing With The Stars.

Two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends

Reader-Submitted Question: Is Uriel a friend of yours? Why is he (she?) the only one who gets a little "Updated" note?

Uriel is not really a friend of mine. Little Miss Know-it-All and I, however, are very close. I have had sexual relations with her husband.

I have very few friends in real life, and I don't have room for a friend like Uriel. However, I do spend a lot of time thinking about what she thinks:

• Is she a racist?
• What does she think of Stockwell Day?
• How often does she vandalize Wikipedia?

A friend of mine says that I am much more like Uriel than I would like to admit. I'm not sure that this is right, but it's true that I often don't have to wonder what she would think: I automatically know. For example, she's against safety equipment because she thinks it makes people careless. She's in favour of picket lines and court actions, but only because she knows that if she takes the kind of violent action against the government that she'd like to take, she will be arrested and her opportunities for preaching will be limited. Well, Uriel doesn't preach so much as angrily judge people who disagree with her.

Uriel only gets a special "Updated" note because she used to be allowed to write here on this blog, so some of my readers are still interested in what she's doing. She has her own blog now, which is good. She has attracted her own audience over there, one that's not quite as interested in grammar or videos of Michael as the people you'll find here. She has a very diverse group of readers from all over the world, but mostly the United States. My readers, on the other hand, are mostly Canadians: I never have visitors from outside North America unless I've been linked on another blog.

CBC is dumber than I thought

It is getting so bad, maybe I should start calling them Name of Broadcaster Withheld as the ultimate insult.

They want to set policies for employees' blogs. Not the official CBC blog, which broke the story, but personal blogs maintained by staff. And not just Peter Mansbridge and the people who you could say are the public face of the MotherCorp, but all staff. Now, any media organization as big as CBC has a ton of staff who have nothing to do with journalism (out of respect, I will not make a snarky joke here) but who pay invoices, answer phones, and generally are just everyday folks with jobs. CBC wants to make these non-journalists conform to CBC editorial values in their blogs.

It's a good thing I don't work for CBC anymore, so they have no control over what I say here on my personal blog that is neither reviewed nor controlled by my employer or anyone else: You guys are a bunch of morons. You discovered this nifty thing called the Internet and decided you wanted to use it as a "platform". You even tried to hitch your star to Facebook and still have mud (afterbirth?) on your faces. Now you want to control what your employees say in their free time. Good luck.

CBC doesn't need a separate policy about blogs. No employer does. Most large companies already have broad policies that use general terms to describe what employees can talk about. This is not that difficult. There are only two principles:

1. Employees can say what they want about public issues.
   
2. However, they can't use their jobs to give their personal opinions added weight.

Now, was that hard? I didn't think so.

You've probably already spotted the difficulty here. There's a world of difference between a file clerk's opinions about caribou hunting and the education minister's assistant's opinions about school space. (I am going to ignore the obvious no-nos like nurses blogging about patients in ways that identify people.) It's true that this is a sliding scale, and I always tell people to err on the side of caution. Well, it isn't really a scale so much as a two-dimensional chart.

First, the content of your comments matters. If you are speaking publicly about issues you deal directly with at work, it can confuse people. They won't be sure whether your statements carry the extra punch that would come if your employer was saying these things through you. In fact, they will often assume that you are speaking on behalf of your employer. I usually don't recommend that people become vocal about their personal opinions about work because of this potential for confusion.

Second, the forum of your comments matters. There is a big difference between talking to a friend at your house and giving a presentation to the prime minister in the House of Commons. Personal blogs are closer to the "friend's house" end of the scale for two reasons: they have limited readership and they are obviously not approved by the employer. By their very nature, they have limited credibility and have no support from anyone other than the writer. They don't pretend to speak on behalf of anyone else or to repeat any organization's talking points. That's what makes them, uh, personal blogs. (Duh.)

CBC is so terrified about the first part that they are proposing to upend the second part. Ironically, this will have the opposite effect they are hoping for. A blog that has your supervisor's stamp of approval becomes an official extension of your work. For an employer, there could be nothing worse than imagining that employees' random musings about mullets, photos of their kids and Twitter statuses could be considered official communications from head office.

This is so obvious that I can't believe CBC would actually want to approve anyone's blog. I read a lot of personal blogs, and no employer would ever want to be associated with any of them. Employees are people: they have personal lives and they like to write about the things that are important to them. Which makes the CBC look better: a page full of press releases or an honest blog about the ups and downs of working there?

You would think that the CBC would know this. They always say they're looking for "honesty" and "real people" instead of talking heads. Now I see that when it comes to their own employees, they can't wait to squash anything that's different.

UPDATED: Esther Enkin, acting CBC Editor-in-Chief, tries to make this better (HAHAHAHAHA):

Hi all: Just to set the record straight –the guidelines Tod refers to are just that - guidelines. Policies need to be approved by the Board.

As the digital world continues to expand, we are trying to provide guidance for CBC staff that is consistent with existing practices and ensure the same high ethical and quality standards that are hallmarks of CBC.
This particular set of guidelines is consistent with existing practice re outside work or publication - just as one must do now when publishing in traditional media.
As for this being “unsigned”, Jon Dube, a Director at cbc.ca sent this to his staff recently. In the accompanying note he said these guidelines came from the Editor in chief’s office. Not really anonymous.
As with all guidelines, there is always room for discussion.

Esther Enkin
Acting Editor in Chief

Happy birthday, Ben

Sweet Child O' Mine

A reader pointed me to a story about penalties for parents when children die in cars.

I have to admit that this was always a fear of mine. I used to live much further north (yes, that is possible), and it would be easy for a baby to freeze to death during most of the year if left alone in a car. These parents almost never mean to hurt their kids; they are simply distracted and forget that there's another person in the back seat. When driving alone with Michael, I would keep up a steady monologue, partly so I wouldn't forget that he was there: "Hey look, it's the northern store! I'm really hungry, aren't you? We'll go there in a few minutes and get some bagels. Do you think they have any without mould on them? You'll have to help me check. Yes, I'll get you some seaweed, too."

This terrifying story reminded me of something funny, and I will spread it around to keep my loyal readers from getting too depressed. I'm certain I saw this when it was a news story, but those disappear from the InterWeb and are replaced with your standard-issue urban legends, so I can only refer to this link as (shoddy) proof that I didn't make the whole thing up. The people who run that website are using the story as proof that angels protect people (I wonder what Uriel would have to say about this idea), but I prefer to think of it as proof that men are, underneath it all, morons.

One Mother's Day (yes!) a man decided to go for a drive with his two children. He placed the baby's car seat on the roof of his car while he helped the older child with her seat belt. Then he got into the car and drove away. During the ride, he noticed an odd sound, which is when the baby seat came flying off the roof and landed in the middle of the highway. Don't worry; the baby wasn't hurt, and neither was the man, at least until he told his wife this story. My favourite part is that he did not notice that he had only 50% of his children with him, but he did notice that his car was making a funny noise.

Hide your heart under the bed and lock your secret door

Yesterday evening I wanted to throw something at the radio, but for once, it was not because my journalism standards are higher than those of people who are actually in the profession.

It was because of an interview with a local woman who wanted to talk about the shame she’d felt after having a certain medical procedure. You see, she’d been pregnant, and always intended to do things a certain way, but later changed her mind. She felt a deep sense of shame and her family was disappointed in her. In fact, she was afraid to tell her family, and this was clearly a reasonable feeling considering their reaction.

She’d had an epidural.

THE HORROR! THE DISGRACE!

It’s official: There is no decision a woman can make about her reproductive health that others will not feel free to judge her for.

No kids? She’s selfish!

One kid? She’s still selfish, and she probably hates children!

Three or more kids? She’s irresponsible and possibly a sex addict!

She uses the pill? She’s definitely a sex addict!

She’s had her tubes tied? She’s short-sighted and stupid!

She doesn’t want to use hormonal contraception? Stay away! She’s a lefty and will probably preach at you about putting Birkenstocks in your vermicomposter!

This is a new one. I didn’t realize that women were being guilt-tripped out of having epidurals. Well, I knew that there is an anti-painkiller movement, but hearing women talk openly about the shame they felt after taking the drugs is new for me.

This is the last straw. I’ve put up with the talk about working moms (we are selfish!) and stay-at-home-moms (they are just begging for everyone to hate them!) for years. It seems that women just can’t win. I’ve read a lot of profiles of women: they often mention that so-and-so has a fabulous career EVEN THOUGH she has kids. Oddly enough, I have never ever read a profile of a man that talked about the many things he has accomplished EVEN THOUGH he has kids. These stories almost never show the man packing lunches, attending soccer games or doing anything that would normally be expected of a mother. If this information is included, it is there to demonstrate that he is such an angel that he has taken on both parental roles (perhaps his wife has died).

I have an idea. Let’s set a new standard for men. They should have to go through surgery without anesthetic. Those who think the pain is too much for them should feel ashamed of themselves because they’re not “man” enough. Also, they should have their reproductive choices scrutinized so they can be judged accordingly. Finally, they should be made responsible for all parental duties and (again) judged accordingly. If they are late for work because the kids had to be dropped off at school, it should be noted on their personnel files. They should be passed over for promotions because they might not be available for free overtime during soccer practice. If they do make themselves available, they should be known as selfish jerks who don’t care about their families. This will do for a start. I’m sure we can come up with other standards as we go along.

We report, you decide

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: No, you're NOT gonna pin this on us! We have no obligation to actually verify the information we broadcast! It's enough that someone TOLD us it was true!

In 1995, one of my journalism professors told our class something that I will never forget: Journalists look for facts; courts look for truth. Sounds pretty deep, eh?

It's true, to a certain point. Journalists do look for facts. But I'm reluctant to think that morose Eugene Meese meant that the current state of journalism is something to aspire to. I'm sure he didn't mean that journalists have no obligation to check their "facts".

Journalists usually fall back on their traditional defense. This won't work in a court of law during a libel case, but it often placates the court of public opinion: This is Joe's fault. He said it was true, and we didn't report that it was true, we just reported that Joe said it. Our hands are clean.

You see, journalists, particularly bad ones, don't think it's up to them to weigh competing accounts of how something happened. This is how the "intelligent design" morons got into the news in the first place: they are mavericks (see previous LMK-i-A entry) with an alternative version of the story, so that's good enough for most reporters.

I was watching the Daily Show one evening when one of their "reporters" pointed this out. Rob Corddry (I think) was expounding on something ridiculous as usual, and had quoted two competing versions of the story. Jon Stewart asked which was true. Corddry gave a condescending laugh: "Jon, I'm a reporter! My job is to tell you exactly what one person said and exactly what the other person said! I don't pick between them! That's for the viewer to decide!"

Yes, it's for the viewer to decide. It's funny, because there are very few viewers who understand that reporters think this. For what my opinion's worth, this shows that journalists pay very little attention to their own industry. You would think that by now, they would have figured out that people don't think that they are supposed to make up their own minds about who is telling the truth. People think that because something's on the news, it must be true.

When you really probe, you'll discover that reporters do understand this, but you have to ask the right questions. When you're talking about the news, they'll tell you it's up to the viewer to decide who's telling the truth. But just ask them about advertorials, and the mask cracks. Most reporters hate advertorials (ads that are designed to look like news stories). Why, I wonder, when news consumers are making up their own minds? It definitely wouldn't be because they read these advertorials and believe they're true because they're in the paper, right? That would imply that people unquestioningly believe advertorials but use critical thinking on the rest of the paper. So that can't be it.