That’s the final word I had on the “media planning” panel I just moderated at OMMA Native this morning. The reason I summed it up that way is that the consensus is that “native” media buys and executions are ones that blur the line separating the historic church and state of publishing. Actually, according to my panelists, it’s one where the line actually goes away, and it’s impossible to distinguish a brand’s content from a publisher’s content. That is now the best practice, if not the industry standard for executing native campaigns.Lisa Camarillo, senior group manager-sponsored news and global communications at NetApp, was a little more explicit about it, describing it as “sponsored news,” which she said is really just “brand content.” So here’s my question, if it’s really just brand content, why not call it “brand content,” as opposed to “sponsored news.” I mean, who are we trying to fool? Am I missing something here?