In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, front page, a report on a fascinating journalism/blogosphere artifact, BrewBlog. Written by an employee of the Miller beer company, James Arndorfer, the blog is dedicated to news and arcana mostly about Miller’s competitors, mainly Anheuser-Busch. And Arndorfer consistently scoops news organizations, including the beer trade publications, and, on new product announcements, even the companies themselves. I am intrigued.
So what we have here is a completely biased, lone voice in the blogosphere committing not-so-random acts of journalism, which makes it very delicious for us in Intro to Digital Communication. He antagonizes news media by beating them to breaking news. He bothers the trade press because his site is free (and because he beats it to breaking news). He ruffles Miller’s competitors’ feathers by spoiling their publicity pushes and by bringing attention to otherwise obscure information in their financial statements and SEC reporting. And he makes Miller very happy, though you’ll notice no ties or tether to the Miller Web site, just a “sponsored by” line in the logo.
Nut graf from the WSJ article:
The corporate marketing battlefield has long been strewn with pithy digs in ads and selective news leaks about others’ business woes. But it’s unusual for a company to go to the trouble of creating its own media arm to grind out news on the competition. While the site lets Miller tweak its famously tight-lipped rival, it also gives the company a platform to take a first crack at spinning industry news.
“They are trying to aggressively go around the gatekeepers” in newsrooms and the trade press, says Stephen Quigley, an associate professor of public relations at Boston University. “It’s something you couldn’t do five years ago,” before the proliferation of blogs.
A first crack at spinning the news. Going around traditional news gatekeepers (and their news organizations, the editing process, filters and the discipline of verification). And yet the blog has value. What do you think? Are blogs like Arndorfer’s a good thing? A step toward truth? Or just another layer of spin? What do you think Arndorfer’s ethical responsibilities are, if any? Does BrewBlog have credibility? Objectivity, fairness and balance clearly aren’t goals here. As the Journal notes, “Brew Blog’s coverage of Miller was rosy. One entry highlighted how Miller won four ‘hot brand’ awards from trade journal Impact.” Note that Arndorfer, though employed by Miller, was hired away from trade newspaper Advertising Age to “cover the sector like a beat reporter would.”
(Forget for a moment that it’s all merely about beer; it just so happens to be about beer this time. Next time, it might be about cancer research or human rights in China, so the questions here still are important ones.)
Onto this week’s reading and discussion, on the ethics of hyperlinking. Perhaps we can agree that the continued separation in news between church (editorial) and state (advertising) is an important one, one that should inform when and what to link. The key is for readers/viewers to be able to easily, quickly discern which is which, making ad-within-editorial text unethical and a disservice to readers. Any misrepresentation, all misrepresentations are unethical for news organizations of integrity. The question becomes, then, how to maintain separation, the division, while serving readers and paying the bills.
Amanda highlighted for us the Washington Post philosophy on linking, which, from Online Journalism Ethics p. 195, said linking to outside sources and sites is “the right thing to do. It seems limiting to tell people about something . . . and not point to them to it. It goes against the Web’s DNA.”
What’s your reaction? How do you determine or discern your own organization’s DNA with respect to openness? What types of information and sites should news sites routinely link to and from, and what sites and sources should be avoided?
Lastly, as I mentioned, it’s important that we recognize ethics as a process rather than thinking of ethics as a set of moral values you either possess or don’t possess.. It can’t be a gut reaction or instinctual response. A process of ethical decision-making can be justified, internally as well as to readers and viewers. (In fact, writing out how you plan to explain your decision can help make the decision, forcing careful consideration of multiple factors, constituencies, pros and cons.)
A process can guide decision-makers past conflicts of even their own core journalistic values and ethical imperatives. For journalism, these imperatives include journalistic independence, maximizing truth, minimizing harm and serving the public interest. As a process, it can be learned, which also is critically important to recognize. So I will ask, in determining what or whether to link, what kind of thinking process should be followed?
To help us, here’s an exercise we used last year in COM 303 (Editing). It is a Word .doc download. Poynter also has a very valuable Ethics Tool, which guides us through the deliberation process in a general way. More specifically, this Poynter guide on the Principles of Linking.
April 26, 2008 at 7:51 pm |
I agree with the quote from the Washington Post because I think it only logical, just like books, journals and some web sites give you the sources to where they got their information from, to also have links to either sources or other branches of information where the reader can further understand about a topic. It seems only fair if such a news site wants to give an objective view to have other links to pages that may give a different perspective or pieces of information that the site didn’t think to address. If I were to give access to other links, I think I would incorporate links to either scholarly articles or blogs. I think that a reader needs to have the option of either reading something that includes heavy research and study and then something of peer opinion. Both are important to get an over view of a topic. Unethical links, such as graphic videos, I don’t think I would ever link to on my site. If I did, I would give a caption that warned my reader about what it was and what it contained.
In terms of deciding what should be linked to and what should not, I definitely agree in over viewing the ethical process to do so. Before you link to another page, the editor should ask himself, “is this link bias or is it objective and well researched?”, “Will this link benefit the reader or help them further understand the material?”, “Does this link harm any social group or violate the privacy of an individual?”, and “Is this link just a short cut for me as a writer to not report or research all I need to in order to inform the reader just so they can get the information somewhere else?” These questions, I think, are a good way to start when knowing what to link and what not to.
April 27, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
While reading the New York Times today online, I noticed an odd hyperlink in the middle of the story. One of the reporter’s sources, a woman named Aviva Cuyler, was hyperlinked to a company called Aviva. The woman has no connection or affiliation with the public company (Aviva is her first name). Obviously some sort of automated hyperlink-er blindly linked her first name.
The Times story is about a new resource for finding free legal advice.
April 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm |
I wish that I had more of a frame of reference for this technique. Do competing prescription drug companies or any other industry employ it, or is it unique, explaining why the WSJ picked up on it?
From what I did gather from the article, it seems like a perfectly legitimate move by Miller. It clearly states that it is sponsored by Miller. The other important thing to note is that as a substantial underdog in the industry, Miller will attempt things that A-B has no interest in. It may be spin, but it is sponsored writing and not a journalistic endeavor, though it is being done by someone who has been a practicing journalist. Arndorfer’s responsibilities are not unlike anyone else who is trying to inform; to seek truth and minimize harm. While this is the beer industry and not something more serious, his actions should still reflect responsible reporting and accurate information. It makes sense that the blog covers A-B primarily, since it is the market leader. His credibility is strong, in my opinion, as long as A-B or any other company do not publicly challenge his information, since they are most certainly aware of it, and if it were untrue, they would make that known.
April 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm |
“What do you think? Are blogs like Arndorfer’s a good thing? A step toward truth? Or just another layer of spin? What do you think Arndorfer’s ethical responsibilities are, if any? Does BrewBlog have credibility? Objectivity, fairness and balance clearly aren’t goals here.”
As to the inherent “goodness” or worth of a blog like Arndorfer’s, I would say that there is an undeniable worth. While the blog is about beer, and some would question the worth of a beer blog, the general idea that the blog represents (going around the traditional news generators, beating PR to the punch, etc) is intriguing. The idea that a blog can and is being used to beat the PR machine is an obvious plus, in my opinion. A company will always release statements and news that paint itself in a positive light. They will also release this information in a time and manner that will bring most benefit to the company. In both cases, the release of information is done so in the interest of the company, not in the interest of the people. The idea that a blog could assemble this information and release it when and how they wish in the spirit of openness and freedom of information could only work in the best interest of the people at large. And even if, as in the case of brewblog, they are releasing the information in order to help a rival company, it can still serve as a balance, check, and challenge to the PR system at large, all of which could only benefit the public as there will be more information circulating and more often. The slight drawback to blogs like this, such as competition to traditional news outlets, again will, in my opinion, lead to the kind of competition that leads to better writing/reporting on both sides of the fight, all of which enhances and improves the information that the public receives (assuming that by “public” we mean the kind of responsible news consumer who attempts to receive information from several sources and who analyzes its accuracy).
When it comes to linking, I would agree with Rebekah that any and all links go if they enhance the reader’s understanding, provide depth to the story, or show which sources were used and that they were reliable. I think that official documents, vocal recordings, video, and blogs are all fair game. It would also give the newspaper a great opportunity to work on their multimedia aspect by providing links to videos produced by them, such as what rome news trib. does. If there’s ever a question about the appropriateness of a link, the writer and editors should work through pros and cons together to reach a decision.
Which leads me to the question of the idea of an ethical process. I do believe that an ethical process must be 99% logical and justifiable. One must ask all the important questions: who would be hurt? who would be helped? how reliable is the information? how necessary is the information? However, I do believe that 1% of the equation must be a gut reaction. Every trained journalist spends their entire career making ethical decisions, and after a time they can develop a “gut feeling”. Also, although they are reporters, they are also members of society, and therefore have an idea of what kind of information people need, want, and how they wish to be treated (i.e how Dr. Carroll said in discussion Friday that he doesn’t wish to be treated like a child by news sources). However, if a reporter or news source follows a gut feeling, they better have the justification to back it up based also on logic.
April 27, 2008 at 9:34 pm |
I think it’s interesting that Stephen Quigley said that Arndorfer is beating out the gatekeepers. Like Hannah said, companies will release news in a timely manner, if its favorable. And journalists may not get wind of, or be looking for, beer-related news on a regular basis, so having checks and balances to PR is good. I have no problem with his blog- it’s upfront about who’s doing the writing (Miller), and that’s one of the most important things when reading blogs is knowing who’s writing. That way, the reader views all the information in the context of Miller writing it.
As far as linking goes, not linking online is like not reporting on all the facts. Refraining from linking, to me, implies that organizations or Web sites are information snobs. They don’t realize that the Web is a different way to communicate information, and the way to communicate the most information effectively is to link. I think news organizations, in general, should stay away from biased blogs that are obviously for or against a certain candidate or party. However, if a story spawns from one of these, I’m not sure I see the harm in linking to it, as long as it was in the context of “Because of (this) post, blah blah blah happened…”
Of course, that’s me generalizing, which you shouldn’t do in ethical situations.
Ethical processes were developed by journalists for a reason and any and every journalist should ask themselves the questions we were all taught in 301, “Can I justify this to my family and friends? Will I be able to look at myself in the mirror tomorrow?” etc. etc.
April 27, 2008 at 9:55 pm |
I think for the first question are blogs like the Arndorfer a good thing. I would say yes in a way as long as you could back up the facts on the blog. Meaning that the blog was giving truthfully information. I feel like the blog can be a step towards truth if the person writing the blog has some degree of credibility. Why I would not put Arndorfer’s blog as a source if I was doing a paper on this or something. I might would still look at the blog just to see what he is talking about and where he is coming from. I do see that objectivity, fairness and more are not in this blog and that is why I would not relay on it for anything but I would still see where he is coming from.
When it comes to linking I would agree with Hannah and that any kind of linking at long as it is good information and helps the reader should be used. I think that sites that have good credibility should be linked to if it will help the person understand something better. Web sites cannot just think that they have the best information on the web they have to know that someone else has good information too. As I said in class if there is a word or something that I dont know about. Having a link to it would help me and would make we want to keep reading instead of stop because I dont know what something is.
I agree with Amanda on the ethical question. I think that ethics is something that each journalists has to come up with for him or her self. They have to think: How will I hurt someone? How will I feel if this was about my family or friends? Would I want someone writing something like this about me? and other such questions. I agree that it is a process that you have to go through and you have to think through many different questions before you decided what to do.
April 27, 2008 at 10:15 pm |
I think blogs like Arndorfer’s are inevitable. It is a great idea and if it can be successful I say why not? I would consider this another layer of spin more than anything because it is just more information that is not really necessary to the world. If there was no such thing as the BrewBlog nobody would be losing anything. As far as credibility goes, I think time will tell. If the things that are written about turn out to be true then there is some credibility. If it continues to get media attention I think that says something. I’m not sure I would consider it journalism because there is no attempt at objectivity.
I personally hate the popup ads in text that are starting to appear. I was fine with just having ads on the sides and tops of sites, but when it is interfering with what I am trying to do online I think it is a problem. Even those annoying ads on the side that have noise drive me crazy, so to add to that by making a huge advertisement popup that has absolutely nothing to do with the story is beyond annoying.
As far as linking to related sites or topics that are being discussed on the page you are on, I think that is completely fine. I enjoy linking and often do click out of the site and come back once I’m done with where the link took me. I think it adds to the credibility of the site and is a way of citing the sources.
As far as the process of deciding what to link, I think the decision to link should be based on whether or not it directly applies to the story and can further develop and help the reader to understand the story.
April 27, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
My opinion as a PR major on the Beer Blog is that this type of publication brings new challenges to the PR teams at both miller and Anheuser-Bush. For Miller, the amount of affiliation and endorsement of his views could cause raise problems in future situations. For A-B, their PR team has to figure out how to out-smart him and still release information on their time frame. One ethical question I do have about the blog is how he actually gets his insider information? Is the way he is gathering information honest? Do people know that the information they share with him may find its way onto his blog?
I think Rebekah listed some of the good ethical questions to consider when linking to content outside of your organization’s website. To me, I think a lot of parallels can be drawn from the same ethical considerations that need to be considered when running a photo in a newspaper. And as Dr. Carroll mentioned, the ethics of linking, just as any other journalistic practice, should not be haphazard, but systematic. I think each news website should have a clearly available policy on how the will or will not link to material.
April 27, 2008 at 11:03 pm |
Hyperlinking is vital to me in online newsites. It just makes sense. I mean, providing sources in newspaper and other hardcopy print publications, but what’s to stop you online? The capability is there and practically begging to be utilized and help your organization boost its credibility. I often read articles on online newsites and wish that I could see the document the writer is referencing. Providing hyperlinks to cited documents is a good way for online organizations to increase their number of regular visitors because they are providing another layer of service that their competitors do not.
As for the Miller blog, I find it fascinating that this blogger manages to consistently scoop the news and the competition. It makes you wonder who he knows and where his information comes from. If he follows the general blogging principle of transparency, then I think this is a very good, credible thing, not to mention interesting. if, however, he fails in this regard it’s a little questionable as to how reliable the information is until it’s picked up by other sources who do provide the source information.
April 27, 2008 at 11:59 pm |
I think there are different reasons to link to another web page. These reasons should dictate the rules of posting. You can link if:
1. You got information, opinions, or the linked website is a primary source. These help the reader understand where you got your information. They add to transparency. You need to really verify that these sites are correct in their information and very valid, and to keep in mind all of the tricks we’ve learned about deciphering the value and validity of a web site.
2. You also might link to a site to show it as an example. Or if it is something that you’re talking about. You’re not endorsing the information or the website, you’re just showing it exists. You can link to something like “marrymydaughter.com” not because you’re endorsing the information or ideas, but because you want to show people that there are web sites for example, to marry off your children.
But- regardless of your reasons for linking to the second type of web site, you still need to do your research. There was a similar web site to the “marry my daughter” where which was actually not a real working web site, but one that was made in protest of a law.
In the Com 303 exercise, I was able to participate in a group discussion about this subject last year, and came to some very insightful conclusions. One important thought our group came up with was to always think of the consequences of what you are publishing, linking to, etc. If someone’s life is at stake, then it is in their and our best interest to MINIMIZE harm. This means to think twice. Will linking to a video encourage the captors to continue beheading, killing, etc? Will it discourage? Is there someone we can talk to that has more insight into what might be the best approach to this story, so that the captured people can come home safely? If you don’t know what’s right, then you certainly should write our pros and cons, but you should also talk to others. You should seek out people who have more experience, more insight, more knowledge on the subject.
April 28, 2008 at 12:15 am |
I think the Internet allows us more space to link and journalist should take advantage of this, mostly because it builds credibility. If you link a database where you got statistical numbers from and the web page is credible then it makes the reader sure that you are doing your research.
I think if you are linking to sites to advertise for them or show how great a product is then that can be too opinionated. It editorializes a story to do this type of linking. But if you are doing it to build credibility or aid the reader in any way then I think it is very helpful.
I agree with Dr. Carroll that ethics is a process. It must be a process because situations and stories will vary but the ethical guidelines of a news organization should stay the same. The Carrier had a situation last week and we had certain guidelines about covering police beats outside of Rome and Floyd county. And beyond that we hold to true news coverage not just “celebrity gossip” and because as an editorial board we felt like this story was merely “buzz or gossip” it was not covered. If we had not had our ethical guidelines in place then it might have been harder to decide on the coverage of that particular story.
April 28, 2008 at 1:36 am |
I think that Brew blog is a very interesting read and when reading it I take into consideration that since it’s sponsored by a beer company it’ll most likely have a slant to it. With that in mind, I have no problems whatsoever with the information it presents, it’s entertaining. I assume that the information he gathers and writes about regarding financials is taken from financial reports and statements which are made publicly available by the SEC as well as their respective home pages.
As for the inside information, I think it’s rather neat that this guy can consistently blow the cover on the top secret stuff, but of course, I do wonder where the information comes from. I can see how this might be a concern for the folks at AB, but I think it’s a good challenge for both their public relations and marketing departments as surely something like this will keep them on their toes. Moreover, I feel like this is a big deal for Miller as they are competing for a big chunk of change in the beer industry so I’m sure they are going to great lengths to keep Arndorfer legally in check while still having a sales pitch buried in the writing.
(Side Note) After a quick Google search on the beer industry, I discovered a website sponsored by AB that stated the beer industry accounts for over 50 percent of all alcohol beverage sales and is an 86.6 billion dollar category. That seems like a pretty big deal to me.
As for hyperlinking, I agree with most of the class in that links should be peppered throughout a story for the purpose of building credibility. However, once it crosses the line and becomes advertisement, it begins to hurt the credibility and as a reader I lose interest. I agree with Caitie when she said that when reading online news she wishes that she could see the documents that writers are referencing, that alone can make or break a story in terms of understanding and credibility.
April 28, 2008 at 7:59 am |
I believe that blogs like Arndorfer’s are a good thing and are going to be a part of the future. Although this one is about beer, like Dr. Carroll said, the next one could be about cancer research; if that’s the case, the information that would be shared would be invaluable. (And information sharing in general is a great thing.) The ethics that Arndorfer must abide by are probably primarily company policies; however, as a journalist, he does have the objective of “seeking the truth and reporting it.” As long as his sources are reliable (and, like others, I would like to know where they came from), the blog does have more credibility.
Linking is a good thing when it lends credibility and understanding to the story. Like most, I’m against linking to graphic material…and having annoying ads pop-up in the middle of the story I’m attempting to read.
April 28, 2008 at 8:01 am |
The quote about linking being a part of the Web’s DNA is one of the most profound points I think I have heard all semester. Ethically speaking, I believe it would be unethical in a way to not point your reader in the direction of root sources. As both Rebekah and Sarah re-hashed, ethics is a process, one that bends (when it comes to the internet) to the new technologies that are constantly being built.
As for Brew blog… I feel like Hannah puts it best when she says there is an undeniable worth to Arndorfer’s blog. Getting the best information to the people who seek it out rewards everyone. It rewards Miller because they have more informed customers, and it rewards the customers who are more likely to trust a corporation that connects to them.
Also, beer is delicious. : )
April 28, 2008 at 11:46 am |
From what I can tell, the BrewBlog seems kind of gimmicky. It really is a good idea as far as advertising goes, but I wouldn’t trust it if I were just looking at it as a blog from where I plan to get all my information. A blog like Arndorfer’s twists and distorts the truth, only giving one side of the story to sell something and beat the competition. Which is great when your goal is to sell beer, not so much when it is something like cancer or human rights.
If an organization has done their research, there should be no reason for them to not link to their sources. In- article linking is fine, I think we can all recognize links by this point. It’s easier to link within an article so that I can just clink the back button to return to the original article than navigating away from the article to find the source on my own. If an organization has reason to believe that linking to a source would damage their reputation in some way, then maybe they shouldn’t be using that source.
April 28, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
Thanks to those who have posted, and shame on our chronic non-posters (you know who you are!). I haven’t read them all yet — it’s been a CRAAZY day — but I did want to respond to Hannah’s 1% gut rule, that I agree completely. Often the gut reaction is the right one, for those reasons the gut responded. The beauty of an ethical process of decision-making is that you can then walk through, think through the decision to verify or reject that gut reaction. Amanda P. pointed out the test of being able to rationally justify or explain a decision to constituents, to be able to know precisely why the gut was right. So I hope no one heard me reject or throw out the role of the gut reaction.
If i can use a crude metaphor. The brain. The mind. The heart. The brain is a piece of meat. Neurons and transmitters. A computer. It gathers data; it spits data out. The heart has an agenda all its own (”The heart knows things the head does not,” Shakespeare). The heart can make recommendations to the mind, the chooser. Typically the heart is passionate about these recommendations. “We NEED to blow off studying, for our own good!” But ultimately it is the mind that chooses. Given information and data by the brain, lobbied by the heart, we make up our mind. On good days, we very deliberately choose our way. This is like ethical decision-making. We hear all the voices, but then choose a good way, one that hopefully aligns the head and heart.