Do companies have a responsibility to vet their advertisers, especially native advertisers?

One of the key components of journalism is to follow the story to get the truth. While many news agencies disregard this and put their own spin on things, that's not how journalism is supposed to be. 

The item in question was posted on YouTube under the news station's channel. They uploaded it and have full control over how it appears. It was a clip from a newscast with one of their reporters interviewing the "doctor." So, if it was designed to be advertising and was not part of a newscast, the news station made a point of intentionally making it look like a newscast. This is what makes it "native advertising." Native advertising is any kind of content designed to resemble the natural or organic content. The clip was indistinguishable from all other news clips they've uploaded to their news channel, including reports. There was nothing to suggest the person paid for placement.

Lastly, no. It's illegal to call yourself a doctor if you're not one. There is a multitude of protected titles in various countries. Doctor is one of them. There are state-by-state guidelines as well. For example, where I live, someone with a doctorate can refer to themselves as being a doctor, but they must specify which type if they are not a medical doctor. A nurse practitioner with a doctorate may call himself a doctor as well, but he's also required to specify what his degree is, so he's not misleading patients. In this case, I reported the man to the medical board. They researched and discovered he wasn't a doctor, but he is a nurse practitioner. They told me to report him to the state nursing board instead. I have now been in contact with them and they have already concurred he broke the law. Their investigation is ongoing because this man was doing a whole lot of stuff he was not qualified to do, but at the very least, he's likely to lose his license and will, in all likelihood, face criminal charges, simply because he used the title unlawfully. It wasn't just the newscast where he did it. His staff calls him a doctor and he refers to himself as "Dr. So-and-So." It's mindful misrepresentation. 

What's really interesting is that the guy who responded to me from the TV station told me to report the ad to the attorney general's office as false advertising or to the BBB. So, I did. And, I included the note from the TV station as part of my complaint. It'll be interesting to see if anything comes out of it. I have my doubts any news outlet will challenge this company because it's a Goliath, but I'm pretty confident the government will if they decide something was being handled improperly. 

The clip they posted was indistinguishable from a newscast. It involved one of their TV personalities interviewing the non-doctor on set, just as they might for any other story. That's what I mean by "natural content." Identical to a newscast. It even had the news station's branding and logo on it. If you saw it, you would have thought it was a news report. 

Genuine news outlets (not the National Enquirer) will remove content when it's bad and will issue a redaction. That's standard protocol in the industry. I expected this news outlet to follow standard protocol. Their reaction really should have been along the lines of "Oops. We didn't realize that. Thanks for letting us know." That would have been a normal response. So, for them to not even look into it and to shrug it off as if it's the "advertiser's fault" for committing fraud, while knowing darn well the "advertisement" is only credible because it's indistinguishable from one of their newscasts and that they have the immediate power to shut down the fraud machine, yet they don't... That's dirty. 

They posted it as news?  Goodness.  I answered your question late at night so some things I was not thinking about.

Many products are - no way they are not going to do us harm.  For instance Coca-Cola.  Yet advertising is not only allowed but seems the industry sort of depends on it.  Perhaps most things that are highly advertised are harmful to us in one way or another. Yet they are allowed and advertising of them is allowed.  Now of course that advertising is going to be false or misleading  - because no way they are going to come out and say OK our product gives you cancer and makes you impotent and causes your face to break out.  Which is much like all these drugs advertised where they now go through a litany of possible tragedies which could result from their use.  I guess to avoid popular lawsuits - don't say we didn't warn you!  

I think what it comes down to is a matter of choice. Now were we to ban all sales of Coca-Cola we would all be better off and healthier.  However I'm sure many people would bitch because they are hooked on it. And if they want to wreck their lives doing it that is their business.  Personal choice. We are not obliged to purchase what is advertised.  I don't know if I ever have purchased anything I have seen advertised in my life.  But it seems to me don't we sort of have a sense about such things?  As a child seeing the ads on TV I knew enough to take them with a grain of salt. I don't know if my parents taught me that or was just natural.  Just because it is advertised on TV or anywhere else doesn't mean I have to believe it.  Nor do I expect to believe it.  Really who does?  Or are many people so gullible they will just believe whatever they are told or whatever they see? 

Look at it this way - if it is puffing something then it is an advertisement!  Wherever it occurs. People will buy anything - the weirdest stuff - for their own reasons.  If I say to them well that is not good for you I am trying to interfere with their personal choice.  We don't have personal choice then we don't have freedom.  As I have often observed on here - freedom includes the freedom to sell ourselves into slavery. But once we do that then we no longer have the freedom. 

I don't think this is in the same realm at all. Using your example, this non-doctor posing as a doctor would be akin to Coca-Cola changing its nutrition label and calling itself a health drink. 

Of course, we all have personal choice. If someone wants to use a substance that's harmful to them, so be it. However, they should be informed that the substance is harmful. They should know what they're buying. This is precisely why we have protected titles and labels. A company can't use the word "organic" unless it meets specific requirements. A medication cannot say it treats a specific condition unless the FDA concurs. Some Joe off the street can't pretend to be a dentist and do fillings on your teeth. Some Joe off the street cannot pretend to be a doctor and claim he's a specialist when he's not.