By Jaci Clement, CEO/Executive Director, Fair Media Council
The most troubling shift in today’s news isn’t what’s being reported—it’s what’s being sold.
Sponsored content and pay-to-play practices are taking over, especially in local news. And if newsrooms thought the public wasn’t paying attention, think again: The single most frequent complaint we hear is that people can’t get coverage unless they pay for it—and the price tag keeps climbing.
To be clear, sponsored content isn’t new. Outlets that value transparency will label it as “sponsored content,” “advertorial,” “paid content,” “native advertising,” or even “original content.” “Featured partner,” “promoted,” “ad,” or “suggested post” may also be used. But not all outlets value transparency—and that’s the problem. Sponsored content is designed to blend in and look like editorial work, which makes it fundamentally different from traditional advertising.
What’s happening: Under financial pressure, more outlets—especially local ones—are blurring the line between journalism and advertising. At the same time, PR firms have seized on this shift, relying on paid content not only because it guarantees exposure, but because it gives them complete control of the narrative. Sponsored stories often look identical to legitimate reporting, and when pushed to social feeds or shared on websites, the required FTC disclosures are frequently buried—or missing altogether. The problem grows when sponsored content lives in a section of a news site that’s clearly labeled, but the individual story itself isn’t. Once that story is shared, the label disappears—and what began as “sponsored content” suddenly looks like straight news. Adding to the confusion, bylines are being added to sponsored content stories, with “content creator” or “social editor” used as titles to further mislead people into thinking it’s the work of journalists.
Why it matters: Younger audiences already struggle to distinguish real journalism from advertising, and this trend further erodes trust. When newsrooms sell space for stories dressed up as news, they aren’t just plugging a brand or an agenda—they’re selling their credibility, and with it, journalism itself. The irony? These are the same newsrooms claiming to protect democracy.
By the numbers: Back in 2018, eMarketer estimated that native advertising made up about 60 percent of digital ad revenue, or roughly $32.9 billion. By 2021, the News Media Alliance projected that native ads would account for 36 percent of publishers’ revenue, with 82 percent of publishers expecting that share to grow.
The fallout: Research shows the public can’t reliably tell the difference. A University of California study found that even when clearly labeled, 27 percent of readers still believed sponsored content was written by journalists. Another study found only 17 percent could correctly identify native advertising. This is good news for those with a message to sell, and bad news for the public.
The bigger picture: Sponsored content, supercharged by digital distribution, is reshaping not only the media industry but also the public conversation—in favor of brands, not truth.
What to watch: With election season heating up (as if it ever cooled down) and AI-generated content flooding feeds, expect more sponsored storytelling that is increasingly harder to distinguish from actual news.
Decode takeaway: Sponsored content isn’t new. But the sheer scale and subtlety of today’s practices make it harder than ever for the public to spot. Transparency must be non-negotiable in journalism, and greater efforts to help the public distinguished sponsor content need to be made. And the public has a role to play: Pay attention to labels. If a piece of “news” feels too flattering, too polished, or too perfectly aligned with an agenda, chances are someone paid for it.
This is the new media literacy challenge: Not just teaching people how to find news, but how to question what looks like news.