The New Journalism

The interesting thing about this "citizen journalism" business is that you can both complain about political influence peddling and accept an invitation to an all-expense paid media junket to Amsterdam.

Uh, because YOU can't be influenced?

Comments

[Elayne Riggs]

Damn you for saying in two sentences what took me at least three paragraphs. :)

[Amanda Marcotte]

It's true. Holland is trying to buy our love so we'll praise their lovely museums and architecture.

[Roxanne]

BECAUSE OF THE HIPOCRACY!

[Night Owl]

Amsterdam huh? Probably more like 'under the influence'.

[Jedmunds]

I don't know that making me simmer with jealousy and resentment while they send Amanda off globetrotting was really the best way to buy Pandagon's love, but I could be wrong. Except that I'm not. Fuck Amsterdam. Fuck 'em. fuck 'em. fuck 'em. They just made my list.

[Amy Gahran]

Well, I guess how much of a potential ethical transgression this is depends on whether these particular journalists consider themselves citizen journalists, or whether this violates editorial policies they've set up for their own blogs.

Not all bloggers are trying to commit journalism. Personally, I don't think bloggers need be judged by the standards of journalism unless that's what they're trying to do.

IMHO, of course

- Amy Gahran
IReporter.org
RightConversation.com
Contentous.com

[Elayne Riggs]

Oh come on, Pandafolks, you may disagree with Rox's conclusions (obviously you do, Amanda, or else you would have turned down the invite), but that's no reason to put on the naive face and pretend that you haven't been bought. You have way too much on the ball for anyone to believe that. Just admit you're for sale but that you still have confidence you can be critical of Holland if the circumstance ever arises.

[Scott Lemieux]

Dammit, why do they never ask me to sell out?

[eRobin]

I'm with Scott. But stupid me, I want to go to Haiti.

[DJA]

Just admit you're for sale

Every blogger with ads is for sale.

[DJA]

(... by your standards, that is.)

[Roxanne]

That's an interesting point. Is there a difference between ads and free trips? If Holland.com bought a year's worth of advertising, would the bloggers write about Holland?

[eli]

i wonder if you will get less blogads now because you criticized this or if any of the bloggers going to holland will drop you from their blogroll because you criticized this

[Amy Gahran]

Are the bloggers who accepted this trip indeed "pretending they haven't been bought?" Where's a list of them, anyway?

- Amy Gahran
Contentious.com
RightConversation.com

[Roxanne]

No, it's been fairly transparent. The list them is here:

http://www.bloggersinamsterdam.com/

And I guess I should clarify my personal feelings about it a bit.

I'm not rabidly angry about this, although I do see some irony in it. I also think it's a topic worth discussing.

A few months ago, a few people delinked me when I started running ads. I don't have a problem with ads and I'll disclose that I work in the ad sales/ marketing business.

I think it's good that the bloggers aren't required to post about their trip. But I find it hard to believe they won't. We'll see. And as long as there's disclosure along the way, it probably won't be an issue for me. Others might feel differently.

Of course, the best of all possible worlds in my mind would have the tourism board pay for the ads . Then the bloggers could take that money and go to Spain or Turkey. Or pay off their mortgage. And then blog about that.

I should also point out that trade deals like this in travel writing is not all that uncommon. The more "legit" travel writers, to my knowledge, don't take the free stuff. Just like "legit" restaurant critics don't eat for free. Of course, they've got large media outlets that allow the writers to expense these things. Bloggers generally don't.

[Jedmunds]

I see your point Rox.

"I'm not rabidly angry about this, although I do see some irony in it. I also think it's a topic worth discussing."

That's how I see it, (though not untill after someone else had already pointed it out) but probably more conflicted because I'm not going to get up in Amanda's grill about it, even abstractedly.

Especially after I just got us kicked off Kos's blogroll ;)

[DJA]

First off, of course I don't/can't speak for Lindsay on this. But she posted her response in this thread.

Is there a difference between ads and free trips?

Well, the trip is conditional on your running their blogad for a month. For some large bloggers, the monetary value of the trip is less than the monetary value of a month-long blogad; for smaller blogs, it's worth more. But fundamentally, it's still just payment in kind for a month-long ad. I don't see a bright line between that and other kinds of advertising.

In fact, the Amsterdam.com thing strikes me as far less problematic than political bloggers running ads for individual candidates or PACs or other interest groups. And since on balance I'm okay with that (bloggers gotta eat, after all)...

RE: what you wrote about "legit" travel writers, what you mean by "legit" is writers associated with an institution (like, say, a Condé Nast publication). So, okay, a Condé Nast staffer doesn't foot the bill for his/her trip -- the publication does. But where does the publication get the money to pay for the trip? Ad revenue. If Amsterdam.com makes a big ad buy in a Condé Nast magazine, are they more likely to send a reviewer to Amsterdam?

It's maybe also worth noting that arts/entertainment writers get comped all the time. Neither they nor their publication ever pay a dime for CDs or concert tickets or anything else. Moreover, every major music magazine (as far as I know) alerts record labels in advance if one of their artists is going to get a favorable review in, e.g., the July issue of Down Beat. You know, just in case they would like to buy a full-page ad promoting that record in that issue of the magazine.

In theory, in any "respectable" publication, there's a bright line between advertising content and editorial content. But (and obviously Rox you would know a lot more about this than I would...) from this layman's perspective, that seems like a custom more honored in the breach than the observance.

For blogs, not even the appearance of a bright line is possible, so it all comes down to how much you trust the individual blogger's integrity. But that's an issue (perhaps even more of an issue) with plain old blogads, and not just this Amsterdam junket.

[JDC]

…how much you trust the individual blogger's integrity. But that's an issue (perhaps even more of an issue) with plain old blogads, and not just this Amsterdam junket.

I would imagine the Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions is banking on this trust in the individual blogger. The board's ad will be more than a plain old blogad. It will be a very personalized ad, one that ties the blogger to the product advertised and tries to improve the chances some of the confidence the blog visitor has in the blogger gets transferred to the product: "The Netherlands Board of Tourism invites you to visit our lovely country. We invited your favorite blogger and she/he said yes." In this sense, the bloggers don't necessarily need to post about the trip for there to be something on the blog that can be read as approving on their part.

Perhaps the above is a statement of the obvious, given that for many bloggers this will be a more explicit expression of their established ad policy.

[DJA]

Perhaps the above is a statement of the obvious, given that for many bloggers this will be a more explicit expression of their established ad policy.

Indeed. I can't see, for instance, Lindsay and Amanda signing on for a junket to, say, Saudi Arabia.

[Roxanne]

Advertisers ask their ad reps to advocate for them in editorial all the time. At the places I've worked in the past, following through on those requests was unthinkable. And believe me when I say that I've lost tons of ads in my time due to edit content I had no control over. But good ad reps know that that's the deal. In exchange for benies for clients, reps can sell an audience of readers who think your publication has street cred. And that's more valuable in the long run anyway.

I understand that the "wall" has more cracks in it now at some mainstream outlets, but I believe it's still intact at most newspapers.

Also, by "legit" travel writers, I mean real writers who aren't in that game just to get free travel. And there are loads of schlock travel writers around. I'm guessing that the folks who do Lonely Planet, Frommers, etc. aren't taking comps from hoteliers and restaurants. God, I hope they're not.

Some newspaper and mag travel sections may appear to transgress ye olde journalists' creed, simply because the ads so closely match the edit content. This may have something to do with the ad department knowing the theme of each edition and selling ads around that (i.e. If you know the section is going to be about cruises, then you go out and sell cruise ads). I don't see this as a conflict as much as a benefit to the reader.

[DJA]

(i.e. If you know the section is going to be about cruises, then you go out and sell cruise ads)

Because, presumably, you have some confidence your writers aren't going to go out there and shit on cruises as a vacation choice -- like, say, DFW does in A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again. Which, you'll note, ran in Harper's. I doubt a traditional travel mag would ever have published anything remotely like that.

[Roxanne]

No, they probably wouldn't shit on all cruises. But they should be critical of the ones they feel are shitty.

[Susie from Philly]

Roxanne, I had the same reaction you did. When I worked at shitty papers, we got comped on everything and there wasn't even a pretense of a wall between editorial and advertising.

At the better papers, though, they paid for those things - because they didn't want their reporters to become shills. (That's a privilege maintained for the Washington bureau.)

Anyway, I think it's a really bad idea. When in doubt, I ask myself: What would Izzy Stone do?

Slippery slope, young bloggers. Slippery slope.

[Matt]

I'm not sure why those criticizing the trip-takers are not discussing the difference between the bloggers mentioning that they are being sponsored by the Amsterdam Tourism Board, and politicians and others who are given gifts but do NOT mention it.

It's a significant difference, and your not mentioning it makes you sound like you're whining.

I think they're not being shills: clearly, us readers are smart enough to see that they were paid by Amsterdam and that their opinions on the country might be influenced by them. To say that readers aren't smart enough to tell the difference, which requires bloggers to turn the trips down, is condescending.

[DJA]

Susie, do you ever blog about the candidates that take out ads on your blog?