What's the line between news and advertising? Some people got their knickers in a twist when Matt Lauer appeared in a Super Bowl commercial. The spot promoted "Land of the Lost," an upcoming film in which Lauer has a cameo. The spot featured a clip of that cameo. NBC aired the Super Bowl. Lauer is an NBC News anchor. The film is from Universal Pictures. Both are owned by media powerhouse NBC Universal.
Does any of that matter? Is it wrong for Lauer to be in a commercial? In a movie? Would he be in that movie if he didn't have the same corporate parent as the movie studio?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Newsers in Ads
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I dont think it matters at all. He can do what ever he wants, if he wants to act go for it.
I disagree with Sarah because in my opinion journalists should focus on informing the people not in acting. I think the participation of Lauers in the commercial takes away the credibility of him as a journalist because the movie " Land of the lost" is a comedy. I wonder what are the real insights of Lauers and what were his intentions with being part of this? 30-seconds of fame?
This seems silly...
Unless Lauer reports on the "Land of the Lost" being real his credibility will stay intact.
Matt Lauer is a journalist?
While I think Sarah is right, Lauer is free to do what he wants, since the movie and the news show are controlled by the same parent company it seems to me like this is some heavy-handed self-plugging.
It almost reminds me of the early days of film, when actors signed a contract with a single studio. If you wanted to see your favorite actor in a movie, it was always going to be from a specific studio. It looks like Matt Lauer is free to do whatever he wants, as long as its owned by Universal Pictures.
Post a Comment