digital Britain
Disclosure of blogger interests
28/05/09 14:45 Filed in: Social
networking practice
A great blog post here from Penelope Trunk and her Brazen
Careerist venture. I say great blog post because
it’s well-written and well-argued. I also
believe it’s completely wrong-headed.
It’s important though; if we’re
really serious about Digital Britain and the
consequent social networking and blogging that
appears as a result, we need to consider these
issues.
Essentially, Trunk is arguing that newspapers disclosing an interest in something are protecting themselves rather than informing the reader. So when I report something for the Guardian and am flown out somewhere by corporate hospitality to find out about it, I declare ‘Guy Clapperton had his accommodation and flights paid for by XX in connection with this piece’. We all know where we stand, the reader accepts that I’ll have been shown what the company in question wanted to show me. This is more important in, say, travel journalism than in my field - if you know a travel journalist went to Cuba only because the Cuban tourist body paid for it, you understand there’s an element of promotion involved, unbiased though the actual article will be.
Trunk believes this is all baloney. She believes this because I wouldn’t be telling anyone anything about any of this stuff if I weren’t being paid anyway - so the reader really needs a disclaimer saying ‘Guy Clapperton wouldn’t tell you about any of this stuff if someone weren’t throwing money at him’ (true of most of what I write but not of this blog, by the way - I write this of my own volition). That is of course a fair comment too, and it’s something I raise when I’m doing my media training. Journalists, particularly business journalists and those who write about products, often get prissy about how independent they are while the PR community has vested interests. Well guys, so do we, just different ones.
But if there’s a reason I’m able to report on anything and it’s down to a company paying my way, I do believe in disclosing it. This is why I’m a little perturbed to read Trunk’s view that bloggers should be exempt from the rule. In my view it’s quite simple: they shouldn’t. You can be fed a lot of unscrupulously biased coverage by bad bloggers among the excellent stuff from the more professional variety. I’ve been to media training sessions at which the advice has been ‘give the journalist information and contacts, give the blogger a freebie and you’ll get coverage’. I have a problem with this. First it’s patronising to a large number of bloggers - gee, we gave Guy Kawasaki a burger, maybe he’ll talk us up? No he won’t. But the ‘we gave a small but influential blogger a Blu-Ray player, maybe he’ll write something positive’ view is becoming endemic.
It gets back to a favourite theme of mine; there is by definition no professional standard for a blogger. Anyone can do it. So the ‘you can keep the review kit’ theory can sometimes be used to influence coverage. Trunk’s view, that we’re all writing from some sort of starting point, that we all have a reason for writing, is valid to an extent - but I still think disclosure of a vested interest gives the reader a much clearer picture of where you’re coming from and therefore arms them better to make up their own mind. Personally I’d love to see some sort of voluntary code for bloggers - in which they could, among other things, sign up and agree to disclose vested interests where they’re involved and undertake to be independent within their blog’s parameters.
Anyone who’d like to help me set up and administrate such a voluntary code is welcome to get in touch...
Essentially, Trunk is arguing that newspapers disclosing an interest in something are protecting themselves rather than informing the reader. So when I report something for the Guardian and am flown out somewhere by corporate hospitality to find out about it, I declare ‘Guy Clapperton had his accommodation and flights paid for by XX in connection with this piece’. We all know where we stand, the reader accepts that I’ll have been shown what the company in question wanted to show me. This is more important in, say, travel journalism than in my field - if you know a travel journalist went to Cuba only because the Cuban tourist body paid for it, you understand there’s an element of promotion involved, unbiased though the actual article will be.
Trunk believes this is all baloney. She believes this because I wouldn’t be telling anyone anything about any of this stuff if I weren’t being paid anyway - so the reader really needs a disclaimer saying ‘Guy Clapperton wouldn’t tell you about any of this stuff if someone weren’t throwing money at him’ (true of most of what I write but not of this blog, by the way - I write this of my own volition). That is of course a fair comment too, and it’s something I raise when I’m doing my media training. Journalists, particularly business journalists and those who write about products, often get prissy about how independent they are while the PR community has vested interests. Well guys, so do we, just different ones.
But if there’s a reason I’m able to report on anything and it’s down to a company paying my way, I do believe in disclosing it. This is why I’m a little perturbed to read Trunk’s view that bloggers should be exempt from the rule. In my view it’s quite simple: they shouldn’t. You can be fed a lot of unscrupulously biased coverage by bad bloggers among the excellent stuff from the more professional variety. I’ve been to media training sessions at which the advice has been ‘give the journalist information and contacts, give the blogger a freebie and you’ll get coverage’. I have a problem with this. First it’s patronising to a large number of bloggers - gee, we gave Guy Kawasaki a burger, maybe he’ll talk us up? No he won’t. But the ‘we gave a small but influential blogger a Blu-Ray player, maybe he’ll write something positive’ view is becoming endemic.
It gets back to a favourite theme of mine; there is by definition no professional standard for a blogger. Anyone can do it. So the ‘you can keep the review kit’ theory can sometimes be used to influence coverage. Trunk’s view, that we’re all writing from some sort of starting point, that we all have a reason for writing, is valid to an extent - but I still think disclosure of a vested interest gives the reader a much clearer picture of where you’re coming from and therefore arms them better to make up their own mind. Personally I’d love to see some sort of voluntary code for bloggers - in which they could, among other things, sign up and agree to disclose vested interests where they’re involved and undertake to be independent within their blog’s parameters.
Anyone who’d like to help me set up and administrate such a voluntary code is welcome to get in touch...
0 Comments
Digital Britain Debate
11/05/09 18:13 Filed in: Social
networking trends
An excellent extract from a debate on Digital Britain
here - the explanations are all in the video.