In England, we used to refer to the separation of advertising and editorial as "church and state". They acknowledged one another's power, but there was little interaction between them. If a brand wanted to talk about itself in 100% positive terms, it had to do so within the confines of an ad. Or an "advertorial" (publireportage).
But in our digital age the border between advertising and editorial is blurring. The trend has been created by manipulative brands and, I'm afraid, intimidated editors. Over and over again, my web journalist friends tell me tales of advertisers who demand to have an article rewritten or a video removed in case it creates a "bad buzz". Beauty brands seem to be major culprits. Typically, they send a product to a journalist to test. When the journalist delivers a balanced review that points out the product's faults, the brand starts flapping its hands hysterically and threatening to withdraw its advertising from the site. This is as childish as it is short-sighted. Readers respect independent and ethical journalism. If they discover that a brand has censored an article or a video, the bad buzz is likely to be even worse. Brands discovered long ago that some bloggers could be manipulated, with ads and gifts, to write thinly disguised advertorials. Now they are trying the same thing with "real" web journalists. They are making a mistake.
