News has always been hard to define, even in the pre-Internet days when people got their news from a dedicated print or broadcast source.

For those of us who come from a traditional American news media background, news tends to mean people or happenings of public interest near and far. We believe true news should be told objectively, with coverage of various sides of a debate. Opinions and slants belong on an op-ed page or in a section of the newspaper, magazine or television/radio show that’s clearly identified as commentary.

The Internet, with its growing accessibility to so many people, has changed the definition of “news” for a lot of people. Many get their news via social media, where innate limitations generally prevent balanced journalism unless the user follows a link. Television news programs and even newspapers devote significant time or space to celebrity or “pop news,” which is of little driving interest to the public beyond satisfying idle curiosity.

In media outlets these days, perhaps because of the influence of blog writing styles, reporters may or may not feel compelled to keep their opinions to themselves. Even as far back as the 1980s, long before Google and Facebook and the term “blog” became household words, there were social advocacy journalism theories for breaking the traditional American view of journalism as an objective storytelling experience.

I mention this because of a discussion that arose recently with a former news colleague of mine that centered on content marketing. I use the term to refer to a relatively new online marketing concept that encourages businesses and nonprofits to share useful, entertaining or inspiring stories for free with potential customers.

Often, journalists craft the stories using interview and structure techniques borrowed from their chosen profession. In fact, some former news media reporters who found themselves unemployed in the wake of seismic shifts in the way people get their news have turned their skills to this storytelling form quite successfully.

But is it news? Many a corporate website will likely label it as such. Is it telling a story that may satisfy a legitimate public interest? Oftentimes, yes. Is it told in exactly the same way the former news reporter would have written it if he or she were still working for a newspaper or TV news outlet? Possibly, but probably not.

So is it unethical to call this ”news”? Again, the standard for me is what the platform purports to be. If a corporate entity not dedicated to informing the public of the day’s happenings in a traditional American way (remember that objectivity in journalism is far from a global standard), then I don’t believe it’s wrong for the corporate website to list such stories as “news.”

A story about how a product, service or employee changed the life of a customer is news within the purview of that particular site. The consumer bears some responsibility for evaluating the platform and source of information and realizing that a business likely is putting forth information intended to promote a favorable – not negative or neutral – result.