Why the Hand-Wringing over #twittergate? Because We’re Not All Journalists.
July 17, 2009
Filed Under: in Analysis, Featured Articles, News, Social Media, Startups
Author: Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins
Welcome back.
Valleywag’s Ben Sheffner asks the question today: “Why So Much Hand-Wringing Over TechCrunch's Decision to Publish 'Hacked' Twitter Documents?”
I am genuinely baffled by the journalistic ethics debate over TechCrunch's decision to publish Twitter corporate documents that were apparently obtained through "hacking" and then forwarded to the Silicon Valley business blog.
[…]
Here's what I don't get: why the ethical hand-wringing here? Why was TechCrunch's decision to publish some of the hacked documents any different from what mainstream publications like the Times and Wall Street Journal do countless times every day: print information and documents leaked from employees to reporters, without company permission? Every company I've ever heard of prefers to keep its business information confidential. Often, they have formal confidentiality policies, or even require employees (and contractors) to enter into strict nondisclosure agreements. Of course business reporters know this. And yet, without giving it a second thought, they ask employees to violate their duties to their employers, and leak confidential documents and spill the beans on company secrets. And their editors don't wring their hands; they praise their reporters for their scoops.
This is a touchy subject, and one we’ve largely avoided here at SiliconANGLE so far. We try to avoid what is jokingly being called “trainwreck journalism” by some, for a number of reasons.
John Furrier, yesterday at the SiliconANGLE tweetup I’m guessing, was asked if we’d ever publish documents like that here at this blog.
“Never, because we are a peers and colleagues group, not pageview driven,” was his response.
I think that’s a good stab at the fundamental reason why we wouldn’t publish them here, but not the total reasons (it was published in 140 characters or less, after all).
It isn’t that we are all philosophically opposed to publishing documents obtained the way Mike obtained the documents there. We’ve all had discussions on the topic with one another, and we all have a nuanced and different view on whether it’d be a good idea. The bottom line is, though, that we’re fundamentally not journalists here at SiliconANGLE, as odd as that sounds to say.
We’re a number of things here. We’re community builders, we’re consultants, we’re evangelists and advocates in certain cases. Most of all, though, we’re analysts.
Analysts don’t sit in the position of total non-bias, but they’re not in the business of habitually breaking news, either. They’re the page two in your newspaper, and the preamble to your whitepaper. We read, sit and think, and then type it up or say it into a microphone. That’s our job.
So, Oh Wise One, What Do You Think of All This?
To directly answer the question of handwringing in the blogosphere, I think that it’s these indistinct roles of all the different voices in the blogosphere that create this apprehension on Techcrunch’s part.
Valleywag has mentioned Jon Gruber of Daring Fireball several times for his strong and vocal stance against Arrington’s decision to post the Twitter documents.
Less noticed was Louis Gray’s public proclamation that he wouldn’t be giving much attention to #twittergate, either.
The bottom line is that while it is popularly unpopular for Techcrunch to talk about the documents they received, they’ve got an audience like this who will backlash against it. It’s clear that while Mike Arrington isn’t trying to reform his image after the whole Leo Laporte incident, he’s more conscious of his actions, postings, and how they come off.
He’s got his audience to consider, and given that he’s a central part of the biz side of his media group, he’s also got the advertisers to consider as well. Having worked at a Techcrunch-like publication before, I can tell you that when you’re a pageview driven blog, what current and potential advertisers think of your editorial style is a major factor in what you’ll put up on the site.
After all, it’s a business.
There’s a whole world of discussion to be had as to whether it’s the best business model for journalism going forward, but it’s certainly no worse than being actually owned by the companies you cover (which is the model of Old Media journalism).
Techcrunch is selling stolen documents and that is wrong in my opinion. I understand why he did it but clearly he knew it was stolen. Pageviews are the currency of which the reward is paid out in.
The difference between an email from an employee of Yahoo to a hacker stealing corporate secrets is huge.
There is no upside to the general public for selling stolen documents only danger of hurting people and their families whose stake (and life) is based upon the success or failure of Twitter (e.g. employees, partners, ..etc).
A peers and colleagues site like ours hopefully will have a "peer review" approach to servicing the audiences and participants. That is not pageview based - it's based upon competing on "value".
"There is no upside to the general public for selling stolen documents only danger of hurting people and their families whose stake (and life) is based upon the success or failure of Twitter (e.g. employees, partners, ..etc)."
I think that point is debatable, based on your level of cynicism.
For instance, if you take the Rupert Murdoch approach to journalism, as long as there's a public interest in watching trainwrecks, then there's a public service being performed. As most of the execs at FNC will tell you, Fox isn't a news network, it's an entertainment entity that's fueled by news and current events.
Pageview blogging, as well as most other forms of Heritage Media, the product isn't the news or the journalistic service being performed (even though it's been elevated in recent history to the level of "Fourth Estate" and put on a pedestal).
The product is the audience. The responsibility is to the advertisers. The way you buy that product in bulk to sell to the advertisers is by being sensational, unique, useful or interesting. The means really isn't important so long as the goal is accomplished.
Any other bits of journalistic ethics imposed on the editorial employees are just arbitrary hoops the company sets on itself for the purposes of making the journey to profitability more challenging (and in some cases, making what they print and produce more palatable to the product / audience).
Like I said, it's the cynical view held by most major news networks at the executive level. I don't know Mike Arrington's personal views on how he performs his job, and if he's that cynical or if there's another more altruistic agenda in place.
Whatever the case is, it's worth re-iterating that we don't fall into either category here at SA. We're not journalists, per se (though some of what we do might be considered an aspect of journalism), and we're not pageview driven and thus not beholden to treating our audience and community like a product.
It's all about servicing your audience. We don't do trainwrecks..we do value creation and collaboration.
[...] HQ. You can read my thoughts on this here, but It is worth adding that there has been a lot of further opinion given, and this is something that is set to [...]
[...] – rough afternoon for someone who doesn’t consider himself a journalist. Sometimes, when you have a deep-seated curiosity on something, you just can’t help yourself from [...]