Ethics: Is Transparency All We Need?

For most practitioners of new-media journalism, the key to ethics is transparency. So long as you disclose all your biases and interests in what you write about, you’re OK. The rest of the traditional guidelines in which journalists have been trained are up for discussion, it seems. The latest and, to me, most mind-boggling example of this trend comes from a column by James Rainey in today’s Los Angeles Times.

William Lobdell

William Lobdell: Transparency Is All

In it, Rainey covers iBusiness Reporting, a new venture from William Lobdell, Rainey’s former colleague at the Times. Lobdell’s business partner in the venture is Barry Minkow.

If your jaw just dropped, that’s probably because you remember Minkow as the cocky young founder of ZZZZ Best carpet cleaners who was convicted of investment fraud in the late 1980s.  Today, though, Minkow actually works to uncover similar frauds through his organization, the Fraud Discovery Institute, which funds Lobdell’s project.

Rainey expresses some understandable skepticism about Lobdell’s approach. The business model for iBusiness Reporting is more than unconventional. It flies in the face of every journalistic code of ethics I’ve ever seen. Revenue will come not from advertising or subscriptions, but from shorting the stocks of companies the site writes about.

The traditional view is that you don’t write about companies in which you have a financial interest. If you do, and you don’t disclose it, you’re at least unethical, and possibly a crook. But with disclosure, Lobdell suggests in an FAQ page, the effect is just the opposite:

“In the end, iBusiness Reporting has much more at stake to get the story right than old media. We do not have the option of hiding a retraction in an unread print edition if we get the story wrong. Our business and our livelihoods depend on getting the facts right the first time.”

In essence Lobdell is saying, “I’m so sure that my story is correct that I’m placing this bet on it.” It’s no guarantee that he’s right, but it tells his readers that he is very serious indeed about his investigative footwork.

The iBusiness Reporting site is too new for me to judge how well its approach to journalistic ethics is working. To my eye, the site does not do quite enough to make its shorting practices clear.  I’d prefer to see a specific disclosure at the beginning of every story to ensure that even the most casual browser sees it. The site should also make clear when (if ever) it is not shorting companies it writes about.  With a revenue model like this, you probably can’t be too transparent.

Anyone interested in how journalistic ethics are evolving in the new-media era should read Lobdell’s FAQ page.  It’s a fascinating look at editorial ethics through a new-media lens.

A Wake-Up Call for Old-Media Professionals

A couple of blog commentaries today by B2B icons highlight two industry transformations that just aren’t happening fast enough.

In one post, reflecting on today’s bankruptcy filing of Penton Media,  Paul Conley laments that traditional publishers have been too slow to die off.

In the other, Joe Pulizzi worries that media professionals have been too slow to build their personal brands.

Taken together, these posts offer a much-needed wake-up call to those “lucky” people who still hold down old-media jobs.

For Conley, the likelihood that Chapter 11 will keep Penton going for at least a while longer isn’t good news, but bad. The complete demise of companies like Penton would be the best outcome, he suggests.

But instead, “these print-legacy, bond-selling dinosaurs get back on their feet and just lumber on . . . holding on to valuable properties that could actually grow if they were owned by people with more vision and less debt.”

The too-slow death of these behemoths is bad for the industry and worse for the people they employ. Conley notes that “Penton, like many of its peers, employs some talented people who produce some valuable material.” But talent alone is not enough. As ex-Pentonite Pulizzi observes, it has not saved many of his former colleagues from long periods of unemployment.

Yet they may be better off than those who have so far kept their jobs with the old-media dinosaurs. Far from being the lucky few, these are the people who, when their employers eventually collapse for good, are most at risk of falling behind in the new-media age.

It’s those employees that Pulizzi most urgently addresses in his post, offering them “Seven Ways to Position Yourself for Unlimited Work.”  If anyone is paying particular attention to his excellent advice,  it is surely the unemployed among us. It may be later than they like, but at least many of them are getting the message.

By contrast, the employed are not paying much attention, and so risk coming last to the new-media party. It’s for those people that Pulizzi reserves his most impassioned words:

“I’m urging you, especially if you have a full-time job that you feel is secure, to start doing this NOW. I can share hundreds (yes, hundreds) of examples of people who thought they were secure, didn’t do the work above, and are now taking unemployment.”

Between them, Conley and Pulizzi make it clear. The days of traditional B2B media jobs are numbered. The only job security you can count on now is what you build through your personal brand. If you aren’t doing that already, you need to catch up—and quick.

Damnation and Creation: Is Demand Media Devaluing Content?

Demand Media is evil. Or so Folio: magazine general manager Tony Silber implied yesterday in a blog post entitled “Demand Media Can Go to Hell.”

Silber’s beef with the so-called content farm is like that of many others from traditional publishing:  to pay freelance writers a paltry 3 cents a word, on average, is to  “demean and abuse professional content creators.”

Word that the company is looking to partner with magazine publishers was apparently enough to push Silber over the edge:

Tony Silber

Tony Silber: Damned Media

“I hope no magazine ever partners with Demand Media. In fact, I hope Demand Media and any site like it goes out of business. They demean and abuse professional content creators, leveraging them to generate revenue from Google ads.

They’re sweatshops. No magazine should accept content from a company that treats content with such disrespect. In the end, too, you get what you pay for.”

I sympathize with Silber’s outrage and admire the frank way he expressed it. But is he right to demonize Demand?

Continue reading