There's a reason why journalists should be paid, one that people like Fuad Kircaali ignore at their peril.
Corruption. Another word for it is payola. (The illustration is actually the cover of an album by the eponymous German band. Rock on, jungen und madchen.)
If you're a "volunteer" (unpaid) editor at a Sys-Con publication, and a vendor offers you money to spin a story their way, what's the risk in your taking it? Sure, if the boss finds out you might lose your job. But you're not being paid. And this assumes that you're being closely monitored -- the quid pro quo of being a volunteer editor is generally that you're not.
On the other hand, if you're a working journalist and your income (thus your family) is dependent on pleasing the publisher, we have a different calculus. Now a vendor approaches you with an offer and you see a risk in taking it. Not only will you surely lose this job, but you're likely to lose all hope of future employment. (If you're a volunteer editor your employment is not in journalism, remember.)
You can only hold professional journalists to journalistic ethics. Publishers who don't pay editors hand their good name to people beyond their control.
Where does blogging fit into this?
In blogging everyone is a publisher, thus everyone is subject to business ethics. If someone is taking money for saying something nice about someone, it's up to the readers to find that out. But remember, the only people worth paying off are those with real audiences, and the risk in this case is not to a job, but to a business, and an individual's business reputation.
So there are controls against payola in blogging. Small bloggers aren't worth paying. Big bloggers take big risks in accepting payola.
This is not true for Sys-Con Media. Consider that next time you see one of their publications. And if you're thinking of advertising in one, ask hard questions.
While we're at it, ask these questions, and think about them hard, whenever and wherever you advertise. Credibility is your best protection against scandal. Make sure the people you advertise with have it. Make certain those leading teams have a way to guarantee it.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brad Hutchings on May 16, 2005 06:28 PM writes...
You can only hold professional journalists to journalistic ethics. Publishers who don't pay editors hand their good name to people beyond their control.
It's funny, but in a recent SysCon video stream of the Maureen O'Gara Show, she makes a very similar point about commercial software versus free or open source software. I am glad that the two of you agree on something.
She makes another astoundingly deep point about managing IP. When commercial software was the norm, it was easy to manage because you had to buy it, and accounting knew where you bought what. With free and open source software, IT can just download much of what they use without going through accounting, which makes it more difficult to inventory what you have rights to use. Toss in the SOX ripple effects into IT, and it makes you want to buy all the software you use again.
Signed,
Brad
Permalink to CommentChairman,
Maureen O'Gara Fan Club
(sadly, a volunteer position, but I know she sees why she should pay me)
2. bobby on May 16, 2005 07:49 PM writes...
Now, the topic of this report dealt with accountability & ethics (in regards to payment). The first comment took it to the 'open vs. proprietary software' debate. So be it. I will comment in that regard.
It is interesting that many people don't see how it is that FLOSS programmers DO get paid. True enough, the 'pay' is not always $$, altho it sometimes is.. Sometimes the 'pay' is the contribution of others to the same or a sister project. Essentially, the code I write is pay for the code you write which is pay for the code I write... A closed loop system. It is this closed-ness that is its strength.. & the source of dislike by the more 'traditional' models. When speaking of 'tradition', it is well to keep in mind what Tevye said..
There is something to realize about the 'everything is worth $$' approach. Basicly, money, as we know it, is simply an accounting system. It is a fluid way for individuals, working within certain constraints, to keep track of the ebb & flow of various goods & services. I give you some goods.. you give me some 'credit', judged to be 'good' on the 'open market', which I can exchange for 'goods' I need.
That said, it has come to be (more & more as time progressed) that there has developed a segment of society which has excelled at taking for itself a larger share of the 'credit' of the system while producing nothing of any value to the system, outside of their 'makeing themselves needed', bascially, being a monopoly (some would say 'extortionists). This exists in many places. We are talking FLOSS/Blogging/Reporting here, so I will refer to that. FLOSS programmers (& to some extent, Bloggers, who ARE Journalists.. Blogging being the medium, NOT the message) are paid in exchange which works outside of the 'official' currency. The reason why those who have learned to 'cheat' the currency game are upset is simply this.. their 'tricks' don't work under the new rules.. which new rules ARE legal under the overall system. Essentially, bloggers & FLOSS programmers are accountable directly to their audience. MS (Sys-Con & others) have been free to manipulate the system to take more than they gave.. Bloggers are responding (thanks to a new medium, the 'net) to a percieved lack in the news/journalism system. Reporters are often/sometimes percieved to be 'shills' for big business/government, and the people, wishing for more open (thanks for the venue, Dana (;-)) discussion/reporting, have created it themselves. The same situation holds true for software. Proprietary software is seen to have forgotten the audience it writes for and perceive itself as the reason for being. FLOSS programmers are filling the gap for people who wish to have programs written for Their use.
MS is planning to sell anti-spy ware & pop-up block service, on a subscription model, to 'fix' the errors in software that people have already paid for. Essentially "Let me sell you a 'need' and then charge you monthly to 'fill' it". How anyone can look at this and not realize they are being 'soooo had' as a previous poster has stated is something I can not fathom.
So be it. as Dana says "Credibility is your best protection against scandal.".. Make certain those you deal with have it.. So it is FLOSS & Blogging for me.
BTW, I used to write commercial software.. All custom applications (robotics/cross compiliers). A market still exists for programmers.. but I would use the GPL if I were still programming. It would have helped me, NOT hurt me!
Permalink to Comment3. bobby on May 16, 2005 07:55 PM writes...
LOL, I just now noticed the Google Ads over Danas article 'Payola'.. Google has it down!
Permalink to Comment4. Fred Grott on May 17, 2005 01:25 PM writes...
The comment I would liek to add is base on sys-con business model..
The magzines are given away fro free to every developer..
Which begs the question how can yo uclaim the number one spot of of IT readership if 50% of the readerts get a free copy?
and Bobby its FOSS not FLOSS
Permalink to CommentSys-Con is able to be corrupted due to their large dependence on ad revneu from those that want a spin on their products..
5. James Turner on May 17, 2005 04:20 PM writes...
Interestingly enough, we had *exactly* the scenario described above occur during my time at LinuxWorld Magazine. A large and well known computer firm wanted a profile done of them, and were willing to pay one of the editors significant money to write it for publication in the magazine, and to let the editor write the story free from editorial control by the company. We decided as a group that this would be an unescapable conflict of interest, even with the promise of editorial freedom, but that there was a legitimate story to tell about the company.
We ended up doing a profile of the company, with no money changing hands, and with all the company's warts fully exposed for public view. I've withheld the name of the company because they really didn't do anything unreasonable from their point of view.
I think the attitude that paid journalists somehow have higher standards of ethics or more to risk by exposure is hogwash. How many well-paid (or at least adequately paid) writers have we seen commit horrendous breaches of ethics in just the last few weeks? I put the same degree of care into the writing and editing I did for LWM as I did for WIRED, or Processor, or any of the other magazines and publications I write for.
James
Permalink to Comment6. bobby on May 17, 2005 07:50 PM writes...
(F)ree (L)ibre (O)pen (S)ource Software
just an added adjective.. Libre is more so free as in freedom than free as in free beer.
enjoy
Permalink to Commentbobby
7. Russell Buckley on May 18, 2005 12:23 PM writes...
The risk to a blogger of being corrupted is that s/he loses his audience - overnight - if they're found out.
Don't forget that people read blogs for many reasons, but mainly as they feel they can trust the source more than "big" media. If that trust is ever broken, you have a blogger with no readers *and* no money.
The vast majority of bloggers do it for pride and passion, or to raise their profile in some way for another aspect of their business. I'd say this makes them less likely to be corruptible, in many ways, than their professional counterparts.
Russell
Permalink to Commentwww.mobile-weblog.com