PandoDaily’s intrepid New York reporter Erin Griffith set Twitter tongues-a-waggin with her piece drawing a journalistic distinction between news “publications” and content “platforms.” She questioned the editorial integrity of news sites that accept or are fueled by content from outside “contributors” (with supposed hidden agendas):
“A platform which allows anything to be published with no oversight, such as Buzzfeed, Medium, and yes, Forbes, can push responsibility to the poster when there is an issue. Not our problem. Weâ€™re a platform! The platform-publisher problem is a sticky one which content companies will continue to grapple with, particularly as more publications turn to native advertising and sponsored content to replace dwindling revenue.”
|Pando’s Erin Griffith|
As a regular contributor to one of those sites (one of 1200), I understand where Ms. Griffith is coming from, but have to disagree that contributions are without editorial oversight. In fact, my editor has contacted me on many occasions to modify how I have characterized something or someone, and in one case, spiked a piece altogether calling it “strident.” (That post looked at the PR considerations in how SCOTUS announced two recent controversial rulings.)
Secondly, I personally have never used the platform to advance a client’s agenda. It would be an ethical breach. My main motivation is to share my observations on business, politics and culture through the lens of a seasoned PR professional, and by doing so, open the curtain on an industry that remains an enigma for most. With that said, there is a growing movement in the profession wherein “expert” by-liners or outside produced pieces are submitted for free (or paid) to a growing number of established news sites.
The issue of which models can best sustain quality journalism in an era of decimated ad CPMs and fragmented readership continues to consume the most esteemed media brands. I touched on this with Forbes’ Lewis D’Vorkin recently.
Also, this week News Corp’s Raju Narisetti weighed in at Nieman Journalism Lab with a piece that challenged the holier-than-though news side of the legacy church-state model to take more responsibility for the business success of the organization. In his piece “Loosen the newsroomâ€™s chokehold on the brand,” he writes:
“If publishers are to build sustainable business models through a combination of advertising dollars, reader revenue, and smart adjacent businesses, then one of the biggest stumbling blocks will be this prevailing, meek public acceptance of the newsroomâ€™s primary ownership of the brand by those in product, advertising, circulation, marketing, public relations, and indeed by many publishers.
MIT Tech Review’s Jason Pontin
Just because a news â€œbrandâ€ was almost never leveraged for anything other than journalism for decades doesnâ€™t entitle a newsroom to its veto-proof card, especially when such power currently comes without real accountability to help sustain the brand, not just the brandâ€™s perceived reputation but also its financial health.”
|Digiday’s Brian Morrissey|
|GigaOm’s Mathew Ingram|
I’ll end with a few of the notable Pando-catalyzed tweets from GigaOm’s Mathew Ingram, MIT TechReview’s Jason Pontin and Digiday’s Brian Morrissey on the subject of journalism, content marketing and media sustainability – all of which are works in progress: