NicheKnot - where news niches knot into the big picture

Page Views: New Bribe for Journalists and Bloggers?

by Pam Baker, veteran freelance journalist

Note: Names have been withheld to focus this discussion on the issues rather than on the personalities involved.

This story began, as so many do, with a slip of the tongue. It was just a quiet mention butted on each end by unremarkable sentences. It floated in a pitch by a PR pro who really wanted me to include her client in the story I was writing for a huge online publication.

But this slip was no mistake. It had been carefully choreographed to give both me and the speaker plausible deniability. I could easily ignore it, pretend it unheard, and it would be as though the incident never happened.

Though not directly spoken, the implication was as clear as church bells: a large number of page views could easily be delivered on this article and any other articles I might write.

Page views: the new Holy Grail for struggling journalists trying to stay employed. Publishers have long since set the stakes: write stories powerful enough, sensational enough, or popular enough to rack up huge numbers of page views – or lose your job. It’s not an empty threat. Thousands of unemployed journalists stand in the wings to fill the space and join the page view race.

Yet no one has ever been able to predict which stories will find favor in the eyes of readers. There is no apparent rhyme or reason behind which stories take fire, which burn the house down and which flicker to nothingness.

So, writers spend hours of what would otherwise be billable time promoting articles in places like StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn Groups, and on and on. These are hours writers can ill afford to give away given today’s low pay rates per article. Yet, failing to do so often leads to the unemployment line.

Nevertheless….

Journalists are cynical by nature. My thoughts immediately turned to “what’s in it for the PR gal?” Page views of any given article typically mean little to PR people compared to a site’s overall traffic. If a single story’s page views were important, then adding to the number could be beneficial to the PR firm but not so much to the firm’s client. Planting a super number of page views would give a false reading of how many readers had read the story containing the client’s super-duper whirlymagig.

As a freelancer, I write for many publications. The total readership of the online publication I was writing for on the Day of the Slip is huge. The article would most likely be read by some percentage of that traffic. Large exposure was a near-given or could be feigned by the PR firm by quoting the web site's overall traffic to the client instead; and, being able to point to an article in such a respected publication has its own rewards. No worries for the PR Lady on that front.

Plus, the high number of planted page views would bump the article to the top of search engine lists. This would mean more readers beyond those that follow the publication. A large number of whirlymagig units would likely be sold.

The PR firm would remain employed having satisfied the client’s need for media exposure. Make no mistake, the client’s need is very real as commerce cannot happen and profits cannot be made if the buying public does not know about products.

As journalists are laid off by the thousands and publications fold by the hundreds, there are fewer and fewer ways for manufacturers and retailers to get the word out. Getting the attention of the few remaining (and heavily overworked) journalists is ridiculously difficult to do. Obtaining a simple, unbiased review is another near impossibility.

Articles by respected journalists add credibility to products. Buyers often make buying decisions based on a journalist’s review or analysis. By comparison, advertising carries little credibility and costs a lot of money (especially in a recession).

So, If I accepted the offer:

• the PR Lady’s client would obtain credibility and an audience before that publication’s readers without the expense of advertising. Plus, a high ranking in search engine results was probable.

• a writer, in this case me, would remain employed, having gained the required number of page views which would presumably be provided by a large PR firm’s dedicated staff.

• my publisher would get his treasured page views ---and presumably the advertising dollars that follow.

• the reader would be negligibly affected since the story – other than an added quote from the PR Lady’s client – would remain unscathed. Its angle slanted precisely to the degree it was before The Slip request. Balance would remain untipped. Other views in the article would remain unaffected. PR Lady was not asking for an article exclusively about her client or that client’s product. She asked only that her client’s quote be included in the story.

PR Lady confirmed my analysis of her slip. Yes, she said. That’s what it means. See, everybody wins.

But no, I said. Everyone does not win.

If planted page views are added to existing ploys such as planted reader comments, paid reviewers and other manipulations of online content, we could soon find ourselves in the ‘age of misinformation’ where nothing is unsullied, nothing entirely truthful.

Or, is this merely the evolution of news? Is this pay-by-page-view play inevitable given that journalists are judged less by the value of their content and more by the number of people that arbitrarily read their work?

I know where I stand: I passed on the offer. My page views per story are organically grown, the same as my followers on Twitter and other social media. I have not gamed the system in any venue.

But was that the right decision – or an outdated stance?

It is clear that ethics are evolving as publishing models continue to shift and churn. I am asking you to help shape that evolution with an open discussion. Please share your comments below. 

Behind The Mainstream Media Veil: Secrets and the Internet Press Guild

by Pam Baker, veteran freelance journalist

It’s stunning, really, how many people think that journalists and editors are defined solely by their medium; as though we would whimper into nothingness when the presses shut for the last time.  Lest you fall for this latest of urban myths, let me lift the veil and show you what you do not see, what you cannot know, about journalists. In this case, a very special group of journalists called the Internet Press Guild (IPG). After you sneak a peek, tell me then if the new media world is indeed truly new, and conversely, if the old journalism guard is not the edgiest media of all…

 

The Secret Retreat Where the Elite CIOs Meet

 

Let me begin with an illustration of sufficient shocking magnitude to make the most pressing of points. The world we live in operates on many levels. The levels with the most impact are typically the most inaccessible, the most invisible and the most surprising. Take for example, The Secret Retreat Where the Elite CIOs Meet, an independent business unit of Gartner Research called simply The Research Board.

 

Behind the doors of an elegant town house in midtown Manhattan, The Research Board’s super elite CIO members, a group of 100 from the world’s wealthiest and most powerful companies, “mingle, pour over research, debate best practices, and entertain presentations from technology vendors which would give their last bit of RAM for an audience with these CIOs who collectively wield billions in I.T. buying power.” And here you thought the halls of power were contained to a hill in Washington, D.C.

 

What you don’t know happens without you; what you don’t know happens to you. Ignorance is neither a gateway nor a shield. For edification and protection, the world needs reputable, reliable, seasoned journalists who operate within a strict code of standards and ethics.

 

The Research Board has been in operation for nearly 40 years. Would you like an update on The Research Board’s work? It’s an exceedingly difficult story to get and solely within the purview of seasoned journalists. Or, did you imagine you could simply Tweet them up and they would conveniently, and without discretion, DM or email you back in rich detail?

 

The Ambulance That Will Not Come

 

If you depend solely on citizen journalists, bloggers, Twitter, and “free” content for the news, you’ll likely not hear another word about The Research Board or any number of closed doors facing any battery of streets. These are not the stories where one needs only to jockey for a press pass, jot a quick blog, send out a green intern, or hire a $1.50-per-story writer in a foreign land.

 

Even Google won’t help you much: a search will net you a vague LinkedIn page; a tell-nothing web site of a single, lonely page; and a nugget or two mentioning this or that staffer. Go ahead, bust out the search engines and see what you find.

 

It is impractical and delusional to believe that journalists can easily be replaced with technology. That’s like saying you don’t need an ambulance service because you own a phone: while connected, these two things are not interchangeable. The same applies to journalism and technology.

 

IPG’s Story

 

I could have chosen any one of thousands of exposés bylined by IPG members from nearly any time frame. Why did I choose one of my own stories as an illustration? Because the IPG is a fiercely independent group of talented technology writers and no one member speaks for any other, much less for the entire group. Therefore, I offer only my own observations. But if you look closely, you’ll find IPG member bylines on nearly every important technology news story told over several decades. If you want a list of IPG members from which to compare, you’ll find it here.

IPG members have always been there telling their stories, all up in your face in a newspaper, a magazine, a book, or on television, radio, or online. Some of us are older, some of us quite young, but all have chops and all have earned their street creds repeatedly in the harshest of environments.

 

Incompetence isn’t tolerated in this group; the IPG has been known to eat its own. 

 

IPG began years ago as alt.internet.media-coverage. As the founders of the group tell it “in response to an infamous net kook who began to alter the signal to noise ratio, the IPG was formed as an invitation-only private mailing list, as happened with a lot of Usenet groups at the time for similar reasons. a.i.m-c quickly lost its signal to noise ratio too and some of the members formed the IPG to ‘take a stand against shoddy, inaccurate reporting about the Internet.’”

 

Now IPG members are outstanding technology writers offered membership by invitation only. Such is issued by the most demanding and exacting of all judges: their most accomplished peers. By the way, there is no conspiracy here – entirely too much independence and cynicism among members for any collusion to occur -- but we do discuss issues of the day and, on occasion, that may include you and your products.

 

The IPG and the Death of Journalism

 

Many IPG members hold degrees in technology or science rather than in journalism and/or were programmers, consultants and CIOs before they were writers. All were the very people that told you, through their news stories and yes, even in early blogs and now in social media, about technology developments pre-Internet forward. And, we’re still at it.

 

Readers won’t pay to read our stories you say? Well, that may prove true. But that doesn’t mean we lack marketable skills. If the media world can no longer afford us, many of us will likely move on. Probably to more profitable privately-owned positions where the knowledge we possess, the relationships we have built over decades (yes, pre-social media and beyond), and the facts we can dig up are more highly valued.

 

The media never owns any journalist’s talents and contacts. We carry those with us. Thus, the top journalists will not fade with the ink on printing presses. A few may open new media outlets; some will do private analytical and investigative work. But, if the best and the brightest of journalists do not remain journalists in the end, it will be the public that suffers. That’s not arrogance; it’s a simple hard truth. The writers will merely tell their stories to a different audience.

 

The IPG web site is new; some parts are still under construction. In all these many years, we’ve only recently felt a need to reveal ourselves. Several of us are curious to see who comes calling and who doesn’t.

 

IPG journalists continue to write while the media crumbles around them because their heart is very much in the craft. They are each aware they have other choices in careers. They know, for instance, that there is a lucrative market for information among start-ups, venture capitalists, tech firms and the like on entities such as The Research Board and for intros to key people, like Peter Sole who is so powerful that Bill Gates himself pitches Microsoft before him. Gates has personally addressed the Research Board on at least 15 occasions, beginning in 1988 when Microsoft was in its formative years.

 

Even so, IPG members would rather stay in journalism despite relatively low pay and the continual bashing. The one thing that will most certainly make them change careers is reader desertion.

 

And so it is that the ending to this story is all up to you, dear reader. All up to you.

 

This is NicheKnot, where news niches knot into the big picture, signing off (for now)…

Why TechCrunch Is Wrong To Publish Twitter's Hacked Files

by Pam Baker, veteran freelance journalist

(This post is in response to the onslaught of questions I have received on where I stand on the ethical issues tied to the TechCrunch/Twitter situation. For details read here: http://tinyurl.com/ltqobq then read Michael Arrington’s reaction here: http://tinyurl.com/msnlpz )

 

To print or not to print, that is the question. Since the first newspaper, editors and writers have struggled with this ethical quicksand. Now bloggers are faced with this same dilemma. Case in point: a hacker drops private and sensitive info on Twitter’s inner workings into TechCrunch’s inbox. The info is sent to other bloggers as well. Now Michael Arrington says he will, indeed, publish some of the material.

 

That decision is unethical. Why? For many reasons. First, for the same reason it is unethical for a pawn shop to receive and sell stolen goods. In this case the goods are intellectual property, they’ve been stolen, and TechCrunch will profit from publishing them. Arrington’s rep, reader count, page views and ad revenue will likely increase from his use of these stolen goods.

 

You don’t need a degree in journalism to know Arrington’s move is wrong. Your gut has already told you this. Still, some need to hear it said out loud, hear their own gut reaction vindicated, because we live in an anything-goes world where one is considered a dinosaur for holding to the old societal rules or a wuss for not being up to the game of 'me before all else and winner takes all.'

 

But do we really want to live in a world where honor and dignity are replaced with ill-gained profits and ruthless profiteers? I don’t. And, I suspect many of you don’t either.

 

Secondly, TechCrunch’s decision must not be confused with investigative journalism for it is more akin to assisted corporate espionage after the fact; company secrets were stolen.

 

In investigative journalism a wrong or a suspected wrong is investigated – usually by a team of skilled journalists – after a whistle-blower sounds the alarm or a suspicion arises from circumstance. Yes, anonymous sources have indeed dumped information in journalists’ email or mail boxes. Some elect to call and disguise their voice. But these sources report a wrong or suspicion, not simply “here look at this juicy stuff” (unless, of course they’re calling a sleazy tabloid where the rules of ethics seldom abide).

 

Journalists have faced this dilemma time and time again. The difference is in how mainstream news media (the reputable players anyway) make the determination of what to print or not to print versus how Arrington made his.

 

The very first question reputable reporters and editors will ask: is this news? Is this something the public has a right to know? That’s an exceedingly important question. Ethically, the public has the right to know anything that may affect them, their lives, their country, their families…well, you get the idea. Does releasing Twitter’s private information pass this basic but essential test? No, it does not. The public is NOT affected by Twitter’s projections and future plans.

 

However, Twitter can be irreparably harmed by the release. Is this ravaging damage for the public good? No, it is not. A reputable reporter and/or editor would not have released Twitter’s information and instead would have reported the hacking and what was stolen and left it at that.

 

That probably means the newspaper or magazine, offline or on, would not have nearly as appealing a headline this morning as TechCrunch’s. It means once again that mainstream news media would be mocked and ridiculed for “missing the story” or “coming with too little too late” or “too antiquated to matter any more” or something else of that ilk. Journalists would bear those blows, as they have for months on end now, all the while trying to explain the decision in what undoubtedly would be labeled largely weak and ineffectual terms.

 

But when did we decide as a society that doing the right thing is a show of weakness? When did we decide that protecting innocents from harm -- and passing on the profits that could be had from such harm – is the wrong thing to do?

 

Yes, mainstream media makes mistakes and sometimes gets it wrong. And, there are those among us that don’t pass muster. But, we have a multi-layered system of writers, editors, editorial boards, and publisher meetings for a reason. We have journalistic standards for a reason.

 

The reason is to ensure accurate, ethical reporting. That’s our calling and we’re sticking to it. For anything else, you’ll need to read a tabloid or follow an ethically unencumbered blogger.

Update: There is another point to consider. Publicity spurs bad behavior. That is why mainstream news media struggles so hard with reporting mass shootings and the like; we don't want to reward people gunning down innocents in shopping malls and schools with fame. Should we not discourage hacking in the same way?