13 comments

• 

  Rob Hyndman

  2 years ago

  Being "enthusiastic about technology and about technology companies" does not require that one be biased. Many do unbiased just fine.
  
  I suppose that what Scoble is saying is he'd rather be Mary Hart than Bob Woodward. That's fine of course, but I'm not really getting why one would go out of one's way lto be not taken seriously. I can't help but wonder how much of this is because there isn't really a revenue model fo much of this, beyond sponsorships by the very businesses that would be covered.
  reply
• 

  Matt Kelly, PodTech News

  2 years ago

  Hi Matthew--I noted in that blog post on Robert's site that I had been invited to the Detroit Auto Show and DID disclose that on the write up of my podcasts and to ask if people thought that what I wrote was enough of a disclosure. Here is the disclosure:
  
  Reporter's Notes: We must be making quite an impression on the large automakers with our content here on The Next Gear. So much so that GM invited us for an all expense paid trip to Detroit to cover the North American International Auto Show. While there, they wined and dined us and gave us unprecedented access to designers, high level corporate bigwigs and company spokespeople, yet with no requirement that we publish anything about them, only that we disclose this enticement. It was an opportunity we are happy to share with you, our audience. I encourage you to leave your feedback!
  
  
  
  While at the show, in addition to getting interviews with GM folks who do have s tory to tell in the space that we cover, I also use the opportunity to speak with other companies who otherwise I would not be able to.
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  2 years ago

  Thanks for the comment, Matt (you too, Rob). I'm aware that you disclosed that you were invited and had all your expenses paid -- and that's definitely better than not disclosing it. But I still think a lot of people are going to question the substance of anything you might do on GM in the future, as a result of that trip. It's a slippery slope.
  
  'm curious -- did most of the people who responded say that they didn't think it was a big deal?
  reply
• 

  d steele

  2 years ago

  Pretty soon the only people who don't 'question the substance' of any blogs are going to be the same people who double click on attachments in emails from strangers. Keep your job in the MSM, Mathew.
  reply
• 

  Dominic Jones

  2 years ago

  I don't have an issue with Scoble as much as I would with others because he's been pretty open about what he's up to. And to be quite honest, he strikes me as having better ethics than some journalists I know.
  
  Perhaps it's just that I think I can read through his biases, not sure, but I'm comfortable with what he does. But then I wouldn't feel the same about a blogger I didn't feel I knew so well.
  
  Rob seems to hit the nail on the head here. These guys probably wouldn't be compromising if they didn't have to. At some point, they have to do something to keep the lights on.
  
  I can't be too critical of them because they're putting everything on the line. If you've got someone paying your salary while you blog, it's easy to be critical. But these guys are pioneering something new, or at least trying. It's not easy to do and it's full of conflicts.
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  2 years ago

  And yet you're the one who brought it up because you said it looked like an Intel ad, Dominic :-)
  
  I agree that it is difficult to walk that line when you're not part of a large media organization, and I'm willing to admit that I have it easy compared to Scoble -- and I also think he does a pretty good job of declaring his biases.
  
  But I still think it's important to talk about what he's doing, and what it means.
  reply
• 

  Randy Charles Morin

  2 years ago

  I think we're all biased, but I could be wrong. NOT!
  reply
• 

  engtech

  2 years ago

  I think that's a very good point ^^^^ that everyone is biased, and it is more about the audience becoming more aware of that.
  
  At what level does disclosure kick in?
  
  If I had a bad experience with Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000 do I have to mention that when ever I talk about Windows Vista? I
  
  If I mention Marshall Kirkpatrick and TechCrunch in a post do I have to say how excited I was that Michael Arrlington comments on one of my posts the week before that?
  
  We're all biased, and sometimes we don't realize it. It is obvious that you're biased when money (or items of monetary value) have changed hands... but there are plenty of other influencers that can come into play... do I mention when covering a start-up/software application that they put a prominent link to my blog on their site? I made no money of it (I don't have ads) but it definitely influenced my opinion of them.
  reply
• 

  Karl

  2 years ago

  Does bias matter? No not really.
  
  And arguments about bias distract from what's really important.
  
  Trust.
  
  How it's established. What it means.
  
  Some *real* form of disclosure matters.
  
  For the very same reasons that Robert thinks that disclosures should accompany each PayForPost piece.
  reply
• 

  Michael Markman

  2 years ago

  Requiring reporters to be unbiased sets an impossible standard. IIt's enought to ask them to be fair and open about their biases (which Scoble is). PR pros, politicians, and marketers will use every advantage they can get away with to place and enhance their stories. We're in a caveat lector world. Journalists and bloggers earn their reputations by their work. Blogging, linking, and comments are reputation accelerants for good or ill. (Boy did Scoble get beat up this weekend.). Readers and viewers are pretty darn savvy at smelling spin. Scoble's long video on Intel had the odor of tedium. PodTech's short video had the odor of a sales pitch.
  
  Did Intel overpay? Nope. Here's why. Intel bought exclusive presence in both the Podtech pieces with no mention of work by I.B.M. and AMD to solve similar problems through different means. Most mainstream articles gave I.B.M. nearly co-billing on advancing chip technologies. PodTech got paid for doing stneography.
  reply
• 

  Karl

  2 years ago

  The bias discussion is a 'change the subject' effort away from the one that matters. The bias discussion doesn't matter.
  
  The trust discussion does.
  
  IBM was very smart here agreed. So was Robert.
  
  But if a viewer saw the PodTech video, would they know it was paid for?
  
  Saying "Readers and viewers are pretty darn savvy at smelling spin." is an argument that deflects responsibility away from the author of the work from needing to be transparent and puts *all* of the onus on the reader/viewer.
  
  Robert himself says "PodTech WAS paid for doing a video, and other work, for Intel. We should have clearly marked that as sponsored content. It was not."
  
  He's right. And arguments to the contrary are just... mind blowing.
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  2 years ago

  I would agree, Karl. And I would point out -- not specifically to do with Scoble or anyone else, but just in general -- that once it is lost, trust can be very difficult (in some cases impossible) to regain.
  reply
• 

  Karl

  2 years ago

  You got a point. Sometimes, even amidst the entire online media revolution, it seems like what we're really doing is learning lessons that have been learned before.
  reply