Are brands unwittingly financing fake news?

Stewart Morrison, managing director, MEA of FirmDecisions. (Supplied)
Short Url
Updated 07 October 2021
Follow

Are brands unwittingly financing fake news?

  • Over 4000 brands, including Pepsi, Starbucks, Nike & Amazon were found to have bought ads on misinformation websites

DUBAI: Last month, it was revealed that many of the world’s biggest brands have been found to advertise on digital sites containing COVID-19 misinformation.

An analysis of programmatic advertising data conducted by NewsGuard and Comscore found that nearly $2.6 billion in estimated advertising revenue is being sent to publishers of misinformation and disinformation each year by programmatic advertisers.

Over 4,000 brands, including Pepsi, Starbucks, Comcast, Verizon, Marriott, and even the CDC, were found to have bought ads on websites publishing misinformation about COVID-19, according to NewsGuard.

An analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism also found that brands such as Nike, Amazon and Ted Baker, have been advertising on websites spreading COVID-19 misinformation. “These ads are placed through the ‘opaque by design’ digital advertising market, which is expected to be worth more than $455 billion this year,” the report stated.

The nature of programmatic advertising is what causes ads to be placed on misinformation websites because of the lack of transparency regarding where the ad is being placed.

Money flows to sites hosting harmful content because the system of bidding on ads means these sites get mixed in with other, more benign ones, Dr. Augustine Fou, an independent ad fraud researcher and former employee of advertising agency Omnicom said in the bureau’s report.

Arab News spoke to Stewart Morrison, managing director, MEA of FirmDecisions to better understand how brands and their agencies can prevent this from happening.

Firstly, how does something like this happen wherein a brand’s ad is placed on a site containing fake news and misinformation?

“In order to understand how brands end up advertising on fake or COVID conspiracy sites, it is first worth understanding how brands buy digital advertising. There are two ways in which digital inventory can be bought:

Directly with the publisher (non-biddable) where brands negotiate either themselves or via their agency to buy advertising space directly with the publisher or their representative in a private marketplace. This accounts for about one-third of digital ad spend.

“Using a trading platform called a DSP or demand-side platform by the brand or the media-buying agency to bid for media in online auctions. These work in a similar way to stock market trading platforms — the buyer logs in, sets criteria such as target demographic, interests, device, time of day, month, budget, etc. The DSP connects to the advertising inventory exchanges (where the publishers load their inventory to be purchased) and any time a person who fits the target criteria opens a publisher’s webpage, there is an instantaneous auction and the winning bidder serves an advert to an individual’s phone or desktop browser and the publisher gets paid. The aim of this type of advertising is better targeting and cost-effectiveness.

“Naturally, the websites in the exchange need to have legitimate visitors, which can be challenging, as there are millions of sites with fake or pointless content with no real people visiting, created with the sole purpose of essentially duping the DSPs into buying ads on their pages hereby earning them money. These are mixed in with legitimate websites in ad exchanges and because of the tools used by the fraudsters, the trading platforms can find it difficult to distinguish the difference.”

How similar or different is this issue from the brand safety issue that happened a few years ago?

“Brand safety issues have been ongoing for years as fraudsters and bad actors become more sophisticated. Digital media ad fraud cost the global marketing industry an estimated $19 billion in 2018 and is expected to reach $50 billion by 2025 — that’s between 5 to 10 percent of all ad digital spend.

“In the MENA region, the digital ad spend estimate is between $1.5 and $3 billion with 30 to 50 percent of digital ads being bought programmatically, such as via an online media inventory trading platform.

“With the latter, brands have three main challenges:

“The first challenge for brands is to make sure that their adverts are served on web pages that have real visitors. Fraudsters have sophisticated teams of people who create websites and then use bots to visit the sites thousands of times to make them look legitimate and popular. The ad inventory of these sites is then made available on ad exchanges.  

“Once the ads are served to a website with real visitors, the second challenge is to make sure their ads are ‘viewable.’ The Media Ratings Council considers an ad to have been ‘viewed’ if 50 percent of the pixels are in focus for 1 second or in the case of videos, 2 seconds is viewed. Additionally, advertisers also do not want their ads displayed off the bottom of the webpage where they are not seen.

“The third challenge is making sure the ads are shown in a brand-safe environment, which is to ensure the ads are not displayed alongside harmful content such as political propaganda or in this case COVID-19 conspiracy sites displaying false information that does not align with the brand’s values.”

What's the impact of such advertising on brand perception? 

“If ads are to have the desired impact on their consumers and drive meaningful customer conversion, they need to appear in the right context. Research by the Audience Project shows that one-third of consumers across multiple markets believe that ads appearing in a relevant context have a positive impact on brand perception. On the other hand, most consumers say that brands appearing in non-safe environments have a negative impact on perception.

“Customers may have little understanding of the complexities of buying digital advertising, and the websites that brands use to advertise help shape customers’ perceptions. This is becoming an even larger issue now with brands considering whether even legitimate publishers align to their values on sustainability, racism, and equality before spending money with them.”

How can brands and agencies prevent this from happening?

“Developing a list of preferred target ‘white list’ sites and ‘black list’ sites is a good starting point. This helps to guide the target media purchases and steer clear of sites that are fraudulent or do not align with the brand’s values. 

“The second is to audit the agencies and their media buying processes by reviewing the list of sites where the agency has spent the brand’s money and investigate. It is not uncommon during our contract compliance audits of agencies to uncover spend on sites that are defined as ‘unknown’ or ‘unpermissioned’ where we could not identify where the ads had actually run.  

“Brands should deploy technical tools to ensure sites can be identified by their tags and legitimacy established.”

What are the factors brands need to keep in mind when signing programmatic media contracts with their agencies?

“Brands need to make sure they have fully transparent contracts with their media agencies identifying all the intermediaries in the digital supply chain and what they cost and ensure this is defined in their agency agreements.

“All too often we see brand-agency contracts, which are ‘non-disclosed’ where the brand just pays a fee and has no visibility on any of the intermediaries or costs. This extends beyond their media agency or the programmatic platform used — they need to know what ad verification tools are used to mitigate fraud, what exchanges ads are being bought from, what data management platforms are used, and at what cost. 

“With everyone in the digital supply chain motivated by commissions or fees, they need to be held accountable if brands’ money is spent on fraudulent sites or sites that do not conform to their values. 

“Many advertisers now conduct media audits to ensure full transparency and performance of their media budgets and learn where the waste is in order to make sure every dollar reaches a real customer browsing a site that reflects the brand’s values.”


Pregnant Palestinian journalist killed in Israeli strike

Updated 24 July 2025
Follow

Pregnant Palestinian journalist killed in Israeli strike

  • Walaa Al-Jaabari was killed along with her husband, 4 children and unborn child during a bombing on her house in southwest Gaza City
  • According to local reports not independently verifiable, the explosion was so powerful it reportedly ejected the fetus from her womb

LONDON: Palestinian journalist Walaa Al-Jaabari, who was reportedly pregnant, was killed along with her immediate family in an Israeli airstrike on Wednesday.

Al-Jaabari, a newspaper editor for several local media outlets, died when her home in the Tal Al-Hawa neighborhood in southwest Gaza City was bombed. The strike also killed her husband, Amjad Al-Shaer, their four children, and her unborn baby.

According to local reports, the explosion was so powerful it reportedly ejected the fetus from her womb. Arab News could not independently verify this claim or the authenticity of photos circulating online that appear to show a fetus wrapped in a shroud.

Her death is the latest in what human rights and press freedom organizations have described as the systematic targeting of journalists in Gaza.

On Wednesday, the International Federation of Journalists renewed its call for Israel to stop killing media workers and to allow international reporters access to the territory, which has been under an Israeli-imposed blockade for 21 months.

More than 180 journalists — almost all Palestinians — have been killed in Gaza since the start of the Israeli offensive, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Other organizations estimate the toll to be as high as 231.

In at least a dozen cases, rights groups say there is evidence that Israeli forces deliberately targeted journalists, which they warn may constitute war crimes.

No independent reporters have been permitted entry into Gaza throughout the war, apart from a handful of tightly controlled, brief “embed” visits with Israeli troops.

Israeli authorities have repeatedly refused to lift the ban, citing security concerns and the risks of allowing journalists to operate freely in the conflict zone.

The blockade has placed immense pressure on local reporters, who face extreme working conditions, including limited access to electricity, food, and Internet connectivity.

On Thursday, the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and the BBC issued a joint statement urging Israel to allow journalists access to Gaza and permit the entry of humanitarian supplies.

“We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families,” the statement said. “For many months, these independent journalists have been the world’s eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza. They are now facing the same dire circumstances as those they are covering.”


Gaza staff face starvation: Joint statement from AFP, AP, BBC, Reuters

Updated 24 July 2025
Follow

Gaza staff face starvation: Joint statement from AFP, AP, BBC, Reuters

  • Statement calls on Israel to allow journalists in and out of Gaza, permit adequate food supplies into territory
  • Over 100 charity and human rights groups say Israel’s blockade pushing Palestinians in Gaza toward starvation

Four leading news organizations said Thursday their journalists in Gaza are facing the threat of starvation as the Israeli assault on Gaza grinds on, while top US envoy Steve Witkoff was to meet with key negotiators from the Middle East for talks on the latest ceasefire proposal and the release of hostages.

“We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families,” said a joint statement by The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and the BBC. “For many months, these independent journalists have been the world’s eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza. They are now facing the same dire circumstances as those they are covering.”

The statement called on Israel to allow journalists in and out of Gaza and allow adequate food supplies into the territory.

The statement came a day after more than 100 charity and human rights groups said that Israel’s blockade and ongoing military offensive are pushing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip toward starvation.

Also Thursday, Hamas confirmed it had sent its latest ceasefire proposal to Israel, with an Israeli official calling it “workable,” although no details were provided. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on record.

Israel’s war in Gaza, launched in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack, has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Its count doesn’t distinguish between militants and civilians, but the ministry says that more than half of the dead are women and children.


Major media say Gaza staff face starvation as US envoy prepares to host ceasefire talks

Israel has barred international media from entering Gaza independently throughout the 21-month war. (FILE/AFP)
Updated 24 July 2025
Follow

Major media say Gaza staff face starvation as US envoy prepares to host ceasefire talks

  • Four leading news organizations said Thursday their journalists in Gaza are facing the threat of starvation as the Israeli assault on Gaza grinds on

Four leading news organizations said Thursday their journalists in Gaza are facing the threat of starvation as the Israeli assault on Gaza grinds on, while top US envoy Steve Witkoff was to meet with key negotiators from the Middle East for talks on the latest ceasefire proposal and the release of hostages.
“We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families,” said a joint statement by The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and the BBC. “For many months, these independent journalists have been the world’s eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza. They are now facing the same dire circumstances as those they are covering.”
The statement called on Israel to allow journalists in and out of Gaza and allow adequate food supplies into the territory.
The statement came a day after more than 100 charity and human rights groups said that Israel’s blockade and ongoing military offensive are pushing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip toward starvation.
Also Thursday, Hamas confirmed it had sent its latest ceasefire proposal to Israel, with an Israeli official calling it “workable,” although no details were provided. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on record.
Israel’s war in Gaza, launched in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack, has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Its count doesn’t distinguish between militants and civilians, but the ministry says that more than half of the dead are women and children.


Magazine editor criticizes arrest of protester holding cartoon satirizing Palestine Action ban

Updated 23 July 2025
Follow

Magazine editor criticizes arrest of protester holding cartoon satirizing Palestine Action ban

  • Retired teacher, 67, held under terrorism laws

LONDON: Ian Hislop, the editor of the UK’s satirical magazine Private Eye, has condemned the arrest of 67‑year‑old protester Jon Farley, who was detained under terrorism laws for displaying a cartoon that joked about the government’s proscription of Palestine Action.

Farley, a retired teacher, was held under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act after holding a placard displaying the cartoon from Private Eye at a silent Gaza demonstration in Leeds. 

Hislop slammed the arrest as “mind boggling” and a “blatant misunderstanding of satire,” noting that the cartoon was “an example of freedom of speech” against a government policy, according to a report by The Guardian.

Hislop added: “So, it’s not difficult to understand. It’s critical, but it is quite clearly a joke. (It) seems to me absolutely extraordinary that someone could be arrested for holding it (the cartoon) up.”

Farley, a regular demonstrator, said he took the cartoon to a protest in Leeds after hearing that 32 Palestinians seeking aid had been killed by Israeli forces that day.

“I saw it in Private Eye and thought, ‘That’s really well thought-out — it has nuance.’ But I don’t think the police do nuance,” he told The Guardian, referring to the cartoon styled as a mock guide titled “Palestine Action Explained”, which contrasts UK’s harsh response to protest actions with its tolerance of deadly force against Palestinians.

Farley added that officers handcuffed him and escorted him into a police van before he could explain the placard’s satirical origin.

He was released six hours later without charge but under bail conditions barring him from rallies supporting Palestine Action, a group that the UK government classified as a terrorist group after it broke into a military base and vandalized military aircraft.

Farley is among dozens who have been arrested since the ban for holding placards purportedly supporting the group.

The retired teacher called for an apology and expressed concern over the “murky lack of clarity” in the police’s actions.

West Yorkshire Police said it would review the incident, and acknowledged confusion following Palestine Action’s designation as a proscribed organization earlier this month.


Italian celebrity chef questioned by antiterrorism unit over anti-Israel posts

Updated 23 July 2025
Follow

Italian celebrity chef questioned by antiterrorism unit over anti-Israel posts

  • Gabriele Rubini, known as chef Rubio, was briefly detained and interrogated last week by authorities on charges of inciting racial hatred
  • An outspoken critic of Israel and strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, Rubio has long been prosecuted for his activism

LONDON: Italian celebrity chef Rubio, born Gabriele Rubini, has been questioned by Italy’s antiterrorism police and had his electronic devices seized over a series of social media posts critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

A vocal pro-Palestine activist, Rubio was briefly detained and interrogated last week by Digos — Italy’s antiterrorism division — on charges of inciting racial hatred, according to his friend and journalist Alberto Fazolo, who shared details of the case on Monday.

Fazolo said Rubio’s X account posts triggered the investigation, describing it as a “blitz” aimed at obtaining data from his online activity, an operation usually carried out by a different police unit.

“Death to diplomats complicit in the genocide that has been ongoing for 77 years, death to colonialism, supremacism, racism, and anti-Muslim hatred. Death therefore to Zionism and the Jewish colony. Long live Palestine and the native Palestinian Semites,” one of them read.

Fazolo said Rubio remains free but has lost access to his social media accounts and private messages during the investigation.

Authorities are reportedly reviewing his Telegram and Signal chats as part of the probe. His accounts remain publicly visible, but he is unable to use them.

“Gabriele is free, he is keen to assure you that he is well,” Fazolo said. “But for a while he will not have the opportunity to communicate through his channels or contact details.”

Rubio has long been a controversial figure in Italy due to his outspoken criticism of Israeli policy and strong support for the Palestinian cause. Pro-Israeli groups have previously accused him of antisemitism, which Rubio denies.

Earlier this year, he drew fresh backlash after urging his followers to submit war crimes complaints against Israeli Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, who was visiting Rome at the time.

In May 2024, Rubio was violently assaulted outside his home by six unidentified attackers armed with bricks and hammers, an attack his supporters linked to his activism.

Fazolo said Rubio has “been persecuted for years” due to his efforts to raise awareness about what he calls the “ethnic cleansing of Palestine.”