Entries Tagged 'Ethics' ↓

with respect to the upcoming Google IPO is how far people who think like this Boston Globe writer will go to prove Brin and Page wrong, to force them to accept “the way things are done” and give up on their ideals. I hope Google has protected itself enough, because if not, I could see an investor trying to gain a position just to humble these guys. That would be a shame, even if their schtick is a little saccharine.

keeps a very nice weblog that covers an interesting mix of tech and personal stuff (house buying and such). Last night though, he tried, in vain, to defend paid inclusion (aka Yahoo’s ‘Content Acquisition Program, or CAP) in the face of criticism from Dan Gillmor. Gillmor noted a couple of stories (from the WSJ and the Times) that have reported that the new Yahoo search privileges firms that pay for inclusion. Not ranking, to be fair, but inclusion and hence, in a way, coverage by the new, much-lauded search engine.

Too bad Jeremy misses the point entirely. He writes, “Anyway, as a user, do I really care if the company paid or not? If it was ‘paid rank’ I might, but it’s not.” Then, at the end, “Welcome to capitalism.”

This totally misses the objection though. People aren’t suggesting that Yahoo is evil for taking money - rather, they’re suggesting that doing so likely weakens Yahoo as a competitor for Google and thus makes the whole endeavour less important and ultimately less significant. There seems to be a sense of disappointment, in the sense that people really wanted a legitimate competitor to Google and they feel they might not be getting that.

What’s more - the critics are right. Google set the bar very high in terms of credibility. There is a sense, rightly or wrongly, that the results Google returns are the correct results. Google’s results are canonical. Anyone who wishes to compete with Google must therefore not just return decent results to a particular search, but must do so in a way that isn’t perceived as being even a little bit influenced by the almighty dollar. Now, with paid inclusion, no one will ever know if that’s the case or not, and Google proved that to be the downfall of any search service.

has opened up an interesting discussion about disclosure, conflict of interest, paid junkets, and weblogging that was picked up in response by Doc Searls yesterday and again today. It all ends well: the unimpeachable Searls dealt with the issue very well from his point of view and I think we’re all well served by the discussoin - those who are interested in this sort of thing. Also relevant in this discussion is Rebecca Blood’s Weblog Ethics article.

There are a couple of things still to note and wonder about, though.

• Ratcliffe wrote: “They’ve either graduated to PR, to writing columns in which they express explicit opinions, they are activists, and they might start a newsletter. But, they don’t take the company’s money, its largesse in the form of hotel or airline expenses or otherwise while working as a journalist. The idea, albeit imperfectly realized in practice, is that there is as little conflict of interest as possible. Good columnists don’t take expenses for these trips, either.” This points to a fundamental definitional issue: for me, columnists ARE journalists. “Journalist” is an umbrella that covers reporters, columnists, and editors, plus TV news producers and others. This sort of definition problem seems picky, but it’s really important to resolve if people are going to persist in discussing whether webloggers are journalists or not to know what they’re talking about in using that term.
• That said, it is simply incorrect to state that journalists don’t take expense money or product from companies they cover. It may be wrong, by some yardstick, but it is not accurate to say that journalists don’t routinely do so and suggest that journalists who do are aberrations. Automobile journalists are routinely sent on paid junkets (this guy tries to soft-soap the question by making fun of it), not by their publication but by the auto companies. Music journalists routinely get free concert tickets and CDs and T-shirts and other stuff from both labels and bands. Book reviewers get review copies from the publisher, not from their publication’s account at Amazon. And it turns out that some of the top financial journalists were on Enron’s payroll.
• No one is making a distinction between a person who is invited to speak at a conference and someone who is simply paid (or whose expenses are covered) for their simple presence. But I think this is fundamental: if you are speaking, you are working, and it should be assumed that you are being paid for such an appearance. If you’re just in the room, however, I and others would assume that you are there on your own steam. If not - for sure I would appreciate knowing who did pay.
• I think there’s a fundamental difference between webloggers and mainstream journalists in terms of the responsibility to disclose. For a journalist who’s paid by a publication, on a staff or freelance basis, I think it’s the journalist’s and the publication’s responsibility to disclose. I think the shoe might be on the other foot in the weblogging world though. I can’t put my finger upon why though…