Blogging for Dollars
I heard this story on NPR on the way home from class last night: http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram.py?file=otm/otm110306d.mp3
Other people in the class are probably in a better position than me to comment on it from a professional standpoint. But my gut feeling is that it’s a little disturbing, to say the least.
The magazine, Business 2.0, will be paying their reporters extra to provide blog commentary. The extra pay won’t be at a flat rate. Instead, the reporters’ pay will be based on the popularity of their commentary. The more people read a blog entry, the more the writer of that entry will be paid from ad revenue generated from that page.
In the story, the interviewer brings up several points with the magazine’s editor, who differentiates between the world of print media and a “world of commentary and instant analysis.”
Hopefully I’m not being naïve about this, but should reporters in their role as journalists be providing commentary on anything? The editor seems to make the argument that in this new world, his reporters need to participate in the “blog” medium to stay current. If what he’s referring to is maybe analyses of issues, that’s one thing. But if it’s the reporters’ own views on the issues, even in a blog, it would seem to negate their objectivity, at least in the magazine’s readers’ minds.
Separately, because reporters would have an incentive to write to the broadest audience, wouldn’t this also lead to stories that may grab visitors’ attention, but not necessarily have great import to society, at the expense of otherwise dull stories that might be more important? The editor said the reporters will have an incentive to write only articles that would be of interest to Business 2.0 readers, but this seems to be a rather large loophole.
Not really addressed in this six-minute story are two additional issues. Because the reporters are blogging as employees of Business 2.0, would the magazine be liable for any non-factual statements made by reporters on their blogs? Similarly, what happens if a reporter makes a statement contrary to the editorial stance of the magazine?
I’d be interested in hearing what other people think. Thanks!
--Ken C.
posted by Mark H. @ 11/05/2006 09:47:00 PM
4 Comments:
Ken -- Thanks for sharing. The editor in the piece addressed some of your concerns, but not all. He said he would "edit" the blogs, which keeps them somewhat under a gatekeeper's control. I agree with you --bloggers might write more current and "hot" topics to get more hits (although it will be interesting to see how they get Jolie's name in all of their articles). But I doubt they will. This is one of those topics I'll put in the let's-watch category. Maybe someone wants to follow this for the class project? :-)
Amy Eisman
I've read a couple stories over the past year of journalists who have been found to have anonymously joined in the conversations being had in the "comments" section under their articles. One guy in particular, I can't remember who or where, was fired because he was found to be logging in under a pseudonym and berating readers who disliked his articles. I think many reporters play for popularity too much as it is, and getting paid on a popularity basis will only heighten the problem.
Max Ashburn
Ken,
This was a very interesting topic, and I certainly agree with many of your view points, it is good to know at the very least that there is some sort of gatekeeping involved, though I fear not enough. This will certainly be an interesting topic to keep an eye on.
Vanessa Camozzi
Re: Max's comment above, Lee Siegel, a critic for the New Republic, was caught/reprimanded a few months ago for using a pseudonym to make embarrassing posts in which he attacked his detractors and effusively lauded his own abilities. The
New York Observer had a good recounting of the episode.
Jeremy Egner
Post a Comment
<< Home