Workforce Management recently ran a post about the need for greater blogger transparency and the FTC’s proposed rules for ensuring it. Before we even get to my response, this is important: the FTC is currently receiving public comments on the issue of the changing face of journalism. This is happening NOW, through November 6, 2009. Are you reporting the news online? Make yourself heard. UPDATE: Don’t wait for more news like this before getting involved.
As for the Workforce post… What Exactly Were You Guys Trying to Say?
In their piece, writers Ed & Rick seem to go out of their way to skewer Joel Cheesman and, to a lesser extent, Lance Haun and Jason Corsello. I’m trying to figure out the point of their piece… maybe use the controversy to drive traffic to some of WF’s affiliated bloggers (which include Corsello and Fistful of Talent, of which I am a contributor)? Bring business back to “mainstream” media from the blogosphere? Do a little venting?
Blogs mix personal and professional—creating something I’ve started calling profersonalism—for which rules haven’t yet been codified… and this article is what, reporting on differences in transparency? And doing so in the form of a blog post as opposed to an article? with examples that clearly judge other bloggers’ decisions? in hindsight? based an implied code of ethics has never been pure even with traditional journalists? and that you break even in this post, in which a clear editorial slant is visible while you speak out against mixing opinion and fact?
Sorry, fellas, but the issues you ascribe to blogging are as old as journalism itself. Frankly, shame on you for trying to make it sound as if they are the exclusive purview of newbies and others who have stepped into the brave new world of online reporting/opining/sharing that is “blogging.” (That’s a reference to a book by Aldous Huxley, just to be clear. I’d hate to get nailed for not mentioning that.)
Historical Context: Unsexy & Incredibly Important
Transparency is a problem? What, like revealing sources or conflicts of interest didn’t exist before the blogosphere? Seems to me, the debate on revealing sources is alive and well within the world of mainstream journalism. Not too long ago, a reporter served jail time for defending her right to not revealing her sources… and she wasn’t some online fly-by-nighter. How soon we forget.
The issue of conflicts of interest isn’t exactly new, either… we have seen enough self-interest-based behavior from media outlets to have adopted a phrase for self-interested reporting: yellow journalism. Our nation has gone to war because of media outlets’ conflicts of interest. (Thank you for that legacy, Mr. Hearst.) Even today, we have a particular news outlet calling itself “fair and balanced” when it’s (arguably strong-handed) leader has a significant political leaning. Not exactly a clear, bright line there between personal and professional there, huh?
And shall we talk pay-to-play? There’s a humdinger version of that issue playing out right now at The Washington Post, one of the most respected newspapers in the country. Or, you could just ask me how many bloggers paid for review copies of my last book versus how many media outlets did… here’s a clue: all major media outlets got theirs for free, not all bloggers did. Did you know publishers often run a special edition of new books specifically for the media, called ARCs? ARC stands for Adavanced Reader Copy and they generally are identified as such so that everyone who touches them knows they are freebies and are not to be sold. Ed, Rick, I’m sure you know about ARCs—Workforce receives free copies of upcoming business books, no? (I don’t recall you disclosing if your publication has ever received free books in your post, but as I’ve received several books and I’m a lowly blogger, I have to assume that you’ve gotten one or two yourselves along the way.)
By the way, what’s your address? I’d love for you to review my next book, which comes out in November. And please let me know if I should submit an invoice with that.
At it’s best, journalism provides an ongoing check on those with concentrated power on behalf of a disaggregated populace. In America, this function was originally defined around political issues. At election time, the populace aggregates and exerts its own power; between elections—and once upon a time, prior to them—the press holds government accountable.
Journalism in a “Profersonal” World
Today, I see journalism facing two issues: first, the steady rise of corporate power over the past 60 years, relative to government, seems to have changed the people’s need of the press, yet the press’s charter doesn’t seem to have kept pace; second, technological shifts are altering the face of “journalism” (cue flashback to profersonalism comment) at a time when the industry is struggling mightily with said charter. (The press has recently missed major stories on both the government and business fronts, especially related to the Iraq War and the collapse of capitalism.)
What I Want from Everyone
I look to companies to put out press releases. I look to news outlets to dig behind them. I look to bloggers to mix fact, opinion, analysis, and factoid in an authentic way… and define—in real time—what this whole profersonalism thing is about. I look to Congress to follow with broad, painful, reactionary legislation that puts the brakes on innovation, at least until the laggards in society can get caught up. I look to readership statistics and trends to tell me what people think they need… or at least want. This is true across the board, not just in HR. And for the record, I don’t really look to the FTC; the current state of economic affairs doesn’t exactly give me confidence in their ability to protect me.
Now Here’s Where It Gets Interesting
Ed and Rick, your Workforce article didn’t do any of the things I’d expect an article or blog post to do. You tried to bring some of the better qualities of journalism to your blog… and in my opinion, you failed. Spectacularly.
But, I believe that if you’re going to go down, you should go bold. You should go down in flames. And in my opinion, you did just that.
So if we ever have the chance to meet, I’ll shake your hand and smile. I’ll tell you that I found this particular piece slanted and half-baked. That if it was an attempt to bring journalistic standards to blogging, then you got the mix wrong; that if you were trying to erect a wall to keep the personal and professional sides of writing separate, then you fail to grasp what’s going on in society, and where your profession is headed; and that if this is your voice, then you need to work on conveying authenticity.
And in the same breath, I’ll also applaud you—figuratively—for making the attempt. Heaven knows I have had some big-time misses myself, and I know that without those risks, I wouldn’t have my successes, either. Please, just do one thing for me, if you would: learn from your mistakes. Next time, focus on the real issue—in this case, proposed FTC regulation of bloggers—and help your readers understand what to do about it.
 | Enjoy this blog? Listen to my new podcast, Beyond Social. |
I'm Jason. I make people shine. My mission is to help 1 million people tell their stories better. 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I must make the same comment about the gender blunder. Why would you assume that it would be a woman who would be the executive blogger who may make a mistake so great that her position might be compromised?
@Patti—There’s no blunder to speak of… only risks faced by the executive in question.