Since the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28, 2026, energy access has been front-page news. As Europe and other regions scramble for oil and gas amid price spikes, fossil-fuel dependence has been made painfully visible, just as it was when Russia invaded Ukraine. That is our latest reminder of the importance of independent, skeptical coverage of energy policy — and it makes the commercial ties between newsrooms and fossil-fuel advertisers an urgent public concern.
Take a March 20, New York Times article headlined "Spain Says the Sun Shields It From Rising Gas Costs. Is That True?" Rather than foreground the clear news that years of investment in solar, wind and hydro have reduced Spain's exposure to global gas shocks, the story dwells on limitations and worst-case contingencies in a way that feels oddly calibrated to cool enthusiasm about Spain's strides in renewables. That framing matters, because who gets to set the terms of the conversation shapes what the public perceives as feasible policy options.
Which is why it's so disappointing that the NYT turned to an expert with dirty energy industry ties: Professor Pedro Linares, who directs a BP-linked chair on energy and sustainability. The Times did not disclose that relationship in the article, a fundamental failure of transparency and reporting.
Industry-sponsored chairs and consultancies create financial incentives to justify continued reliance on gas and other fossil fuels. Readers deserve to know potential conflicts of interest so they can properly weigh expert claims. And reporters should seek source diversity that includes independent academics, community voices, consumer advocates, and technologists working on storage and grid integration, rather than professors turned functional advertisers.
Why suspect industry influence in the first place? The fossil-fuel sector has long framed renewables as partners rather than replacements, a rhetorical strategy that delays the political will to phase out hydrocarbons. Recent research supports that conclusion. An academic paper has shown that since the 2015 Paris Agreement, fossil-fuel corporate messaging has routinely paired upbeat references to renewables with caveats that reinforce gas as an indispensable complement, a "doublespeak" that both normalizes continued fossil production and slows transition momentum. Clean Creatives' 2026 "Toxic Accounts" report reaches a similar judgment: oil majors, after a moment of rhetorical climate leadership, now advance narratives that push solutions like CCS (carbon capture and storage), biofuels, and natural gas, often framed as compatible with decarbonization but, in practice, extend fossil dependence.
Native advertising and branded content amplify this dynamic. As I've written, The Times runs a visible Chevron paid-content series that highlights company employees and "lower carbon" experiments. In my (open access) book, Content Confusion, I show that between October 2020 and October 2023, the New York Times reportedly earned more than $20 million from fossil-fuel advertisers. That financial relationship creates a perceptual risk: when a newsroom's own platforms host advertiser-friendly narratives and its news pages echo similar frames without robust counterbalance, readers reasonably suspect commercial influence, further eroding trust in an industry already under sustained assault by authoritarians and billionaires.
Self-regulation matters but has limits. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics instructs journalists to "distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines," and to label sponsored content. Yet, multiple studies I discuss in Content Confusion show that native ads still deceive many readers even when labeled, and even prominent disclosure is only a partial remedy.
The Society of Professional Journalists is now reviewing the Code for the first time since 2014 (only the sixth revision in its history) and is actively soliciting public input: "We want to hear from you – your expectations, concerns and ideas. What guidance would help journalists better serve you and operate in an ethical and fair manner? Your feedback will help inform SPJ's review of the Code as the Society continues to encourage journalists to use the Code to produce fair, accurate, credible and ethical journalism."
This review is a timely opportunity to press for stronger guidance on disclosures, newsroom-commercial firewalls, and sourcing standards; though advisory codes alone are unlikely to solve systemic incentives without complementary public pressure and policy measures.
We need stronger, systemic tools. Inspired by the EU's Digital Services Act, a team I lead is building the Native Advertising Observatory, a public, interactive dashboard and repository that will track sponsored content from fossil-fuel interests across mainstream outlets. Built on an expanding dataset of native ads, the Observatory will provide researchers, journalists, policy advocates, and lawmakers with searchable archives, trend analyses, and visualizations of narrative frames. All this will serve to make it easier to spot patterns of doublespeak, platform dependence, and industry influence.
Because no monitoring system is perfect, we are launching a public tip line/data donation portal called "Native Ad Watch" so readers can submit native ads they encounter. Your submissions will help the Observatory fill gaps and ensure broader, crowd-sourced coverage. Submit examples or learn more at: https://forms.gle/ZPB2coAW86rt6bLq5
Democratic deliberation depends on clear signals amid commercial noise. When energy security and climate policy are on the line, we cannot afford coverage that systematically downplays the political choices that create fossil-fuel dependence.
The Native Advertising Observatory aims to shine light where paid content and corporate narratives obscure it, not to censor debate but to make the players, ties, and claims visible so citizens and policymakers can judge for themselves.