And are blogs inherently biased?

The answers to those two questions are no, and yes respectively. The recent Wired/Arrington dust up is just the latest in a very long series of charges and counter charges between blogs and traditional media.

I am not picking any sides in this particular story. I read TechCrunch almost daily not because I am a techy and I am certainly not a tech investor but because there is always something interesting there and TechCrunch is at the center of the tech-Blogosphere. Which is one of the important communities at BlogWorld & New Media Expo.

I Also subscribe to Wired. Along with Fast Company they are two closest traditional media outlets to the Blogosphere. Mostly in tech but they certainly touch on and report on several communities within the Blogosphere.

Back to the issue at hand. Traditional media outlets for at least as long as I can remember have charged that their biggest advantage over blogs is that they are unbiased and have ethical standards and blogs are not and do not. (Study’s have proven otherwise).

This charge has been made in every realm of traditional media, from politics, to sports, to tech, to reporting on the war in Iraq to you name the topic I guarantee you some journalist or editor in that community has written the exact same thing Betsy Schiffman wrote on her Wired blog (that’s ironic isn’t it) this Tuesday. Specifically the quote from Peter Sussman who serves on the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists. (there can’t be any more credible source than that right?)

We asked Peter Sussman, who serves on the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists, for his take on the situation.

“The one thing that newspapers still have over new online outlets is the brand, the name and the standards. They’ve told readers that by the mere presence of a story on the Washington Post, that it’s been through a rigorous analysis or edit and it is up to their standards. The assumption is that unless you hear otherwise, the content you see in the Post has gone through that ethical screening.”

I am sure Betsy and Peter practice ethical standards and believe what he has said and try very hard to live up to those standards but here is the rub for Betsy, Peter, and every other traditional media type who has ever uttered this mantra……

WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU!

When I say we I mean bloggers, I mean blog readers, I mean every consumer of every form of news media that has ever been written or broadcast. We simply do not believe you are without bias. Why should we?

Time and time again bias in media has been proven, and when it isn’t proven we certainly have our suspicions.

Isn’t it one of the tenets of good journalism to be skeptical?

Why then do you not understand that the same rule applies to the consumers of traditional media content?

Ever heard the old saying don’t believe everything you read?

Ever heard the Mark Twain quote “Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics?”

We have all heard the line about the “separation between Church and State” between editorial copy and ad-sales. Frankly that’s poppycock (I love it when I can figure out a way to throw poppycock into a post!). That’s why Consumer Reports the watch dog for consumers and the (allegedly) unasailable source of consumer product reviews had to quit taking advertising dollars. The moment you do, you create a conflict of interest. Mark Cuban addressed this in his keynote at BlogWorld last year.

We don’t care if the ad-sales guy brings in the money, and the journalist writes the story and the editors edit and verify their story. We all know the publishers job is to MAKE MONEY. You are not and never have been in the news business. You are in the advertising business. Every journalist who writes for you knows where his or her checks come from. That doesn’t make them bad people and I am not saying they don’t try very hard to be unbiased in their reporting. I am quite sure they do. We just don’t believe there is zero influence in your writing.

I have told this anecdote many times but for new readers here it is again. I have personally worked for more than one company that his written it’s own product reviews that have appeared in industry trade journals. Now that is about as bad as it gets but the fact is it is far more common than you might think.

But bias doesn’t start or end with advertising. We all have our inherent biases. Our political views, the industry we are in, where we live, who our family works for, the stock we own, how old we are, our gender, the type of family environment we were brought up in, our economic status and millions of other influences that shape our view of the world. Each of these things affects the way we see and cover any story. Journalists are no different. Sure there may be some superfreak out there without bias but that would be the rare exception to the rule.

Now here is where I will give journalism and journalists the credit they’re due. No doubt Journalists try to overcome their bias. Organizations like the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists, in-house ombudsmen and editors are a fine example of those efforts.

Many bloggers could learn quite a lot about journalistic standards and would do well to try and adhere to them. However Michael Arrington and Techcrunch may be many things but anyone who is more than casual reader would have to admit that they do try to adhere to some form of journalistic standard. To Mike’s credit he does disclose which companies he invests in. There is no doubt they have broke many big stories and have offered their readers interesting and informative content.

Isn’t that what journalism is supposed to be all about?

This is an interesting experiment. A good friend of mine bought a new Toyota Camry in March of 2006.  A few days ago he had some car trouble and took it to the dealer. Toyota of Temecula Valley.  It sounds like his engine is blown and that the dealer is going to try to stick him with the repair bill even though he purchased the extended 100,000 mile warranty.

I advised him to start a blog and detail his experience.  He did. You can find his blog My Toyota Camry on blogspot. Please read the whole story, stay tuned and link to his blog to see if we can get Toyota to do right by him.

Kim Zetter of Wired has the story. Long story short a new CEO comes in and doesn’t appreciate the Editor-In-Cheif writing stories that are critical of advertisers.

The blogosphere has been talking about transparency and not selling out to advertisers and maintaining integrity, etc for a very long time. As I have said many times before this is nothing new.

If any magazine or radio station let alone TV program tries to tell you that the advertisers don’t hold any sway over editorial content don’t believe it for a second.

Even in this story where now former PC World magazine Editor Harry McCracken ended up quiting over his story being killed Wired reports he was willing to compromise:

The piece, a whimsical article titled “Ten Things We Hate About Apple,” was still in draft form when Crawford killed it. McCracken said no way and walked after Crawford refused to compromise.

Don’t think advertisers effect content? think again. Anyone who ever accepts a dollar from an advertiser will feel pressure to compromise their content either internally or externally. That is just a fact. Blogs are no exception.

Does that mean advertising is bad or that anyone who runs ads in their newspaper, magazine or blog is a sellout?

Personally I don’t think so as long as you don’t cross the line. Where is the line you ask?

It’s kinda like the old saying in pornography when you see it you will know.

A great post at Ed Bott’s Windows Expertise but I have to take exception to this:

For people who aren’t in the publishing trade, it’s easy to build elaborate conspiracy theories about the role of advertisers in editorial decisions. I’ve seen enough letters and online comments to know that some readers believe that reviews and news articles in technical publications are influenced by how many ads the subject of the story agrees to buy.

I know it to be a fact Ed. Maybe not at your magazines but I know it happens every single day. It looks like it is happening right now at PC World doesn’t it?

Read the whole post as Ed makes some very good points like this one:

Ten years ago this sort of story would have appeared in a trade magazine for publishers and editors, and most readers would never have heard about it. In the online era, the story is out in a matter of hours, and it doesn’t make IDG look good.

That right before blogging a story like this would have never seen the light of day.

Harry+McCracken, PC+World, advertising, journalism, editorial+independence

Should a different set of rules apply to blogs than say your local newspaper or favorite magazine?

How about a trade magazine?

Josh Friedman has the latest article discussing the ethics of bloggers being paid by advertisers to post about their products in today’s Los Angeles Times. Here is the subhead from the article:

Payments by advertisers to bloggers for writing about their goods, critics say, blur the line between opinion and product placement.

Before I go on let me say getting paid to promote a product or service and not disclosing it is unethical no matter what medium you happen to be in, but is what some blogs are doing any different than the local newspaper?

I would say in most cases yes there is a difference but many times it is not a very big one. No credible newspaper would print something shilling a product without disclosing it. However they do run ads, and some ads are definitely made to look like editorial copy. They are called Advertorials. The newspaper didn’t create it or print it but they certainly know they are deceptive when they run them.

Same certainly goes for TV. Ever watched an infomercial? How about a paid program on your local radio station? Sure they have a weak disclaimer toward the end of the ad, or if it’s one of those hour long deals they will run the disclaimer a couple of times but we all know what they are trying to do. How about those paid spots that your favorite DJ or radio hosts reads for advertisers?

Do they disclose they are reading a paid advertisement? I listen to talk radio all day and I am telling you not a lot. Sure they sound like ads but not all the time. Sometimes they get pretty damn close to just sounding like your favorite talk show host just loves ACME company’s new widget.
As for trade magazines I know for a fact that product reviews in some if not many trade magazines are written by advertisers.

All of these traditional media tactics have one thing in common, they are created with the intent to mislead the reader,viewer,listener. That doesn’t make it right, I am just pointing out that traditional media has its scallywags as well.

There is another important distinction between these deceptive new media tactics and bloggers failing to disclose paid advertorials. Most bloggers condemn these tactics. Advertorials, Infomercials, and Paid Programming are accepted traditional media practices.
Everyone knows Jason Calacanis has a serious problem with PayPerPost and I am sure he has said this a hundred times but today he hits the nail on the proverbial head with this sentence:

I would have no problem with PayPerPost if they forced their bloggers to disclose that their posts were paid IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE POST.

If you want to get paid to post things about products I say fine, just disclose it and you are just as credible as the morning drive DJ. Don’t disclose and you are as credible as that guy that sits on all the late night infomercials pretending to be a journalist, doctor, lawyer, etc, etc.

I hate infomercials as much as the next guy and I love the promise that new media offers us. It gives a voice to all of us that we haven’t had for a very long time. At the same time I am a realist and I understand that while some will use this new power for good, others are going to use it for evil. Where mass eyeballs and ears go, so will the deceptive advertisers.

others blogging this story:

Social Media:

Draper couldn’t be more wrong. I agree with Doc Searls, Dan Gilmor, Jason Calacanis, Jeff Jarvis, David Weinberger and others who believe that pay-per-post efforts to commercialize the blogosphere, often by stealth, can only have a deleterious effect on the open conversational nature of blogging.

Tris Hussey:

I think there is a place for sponsored posts and a mechanism where companies can openly request reviews and bloggers be compensated for the time they put into those reviews.

Dan Gillmor:

This is not a close call. To take money for touting products in a blog and not disclose it — prominently, and in context — is not ethical. No amount of thumb-sucking justifications can change that.