| |||||||||||||
SponsorshipSponsorshipPosted May 17, 2011 19:12 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)In reply to: Sponsorship by corbet Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software
Let me be very clear I'm not complaining. In fact I'm actually following up on a gripe about journo sponsorship made by a journo who is most assuredly in the Ubuntu camp. I'm asking questions because I'm generally curious about how this works. For completeness I've poked someone in the eye at Red Hat via private email to ask about how they handle journo sponsorship. This isn't a witch hunt, I'm information gathering.
I would say that if its common practice for an organizing entity to sponsor journos, I think sponsored journos should include that information in any article about the event as part of disclosure.
And since Jono's description of the UDS sponsoring process added just this week doesn't mention journos as a special group...I was misled into thinking it was a common budget based on the chatter I was seeing about the original gripe. If there's a separate pot of money for journos then its not a problem. But like I said, from the chatter I'm seeing, that's not necessarily the impression. A clear statement about how journos are selected which parallel's Jono's description of UDS contributor sponsorship would probably make things clearer.
-jef
(Log in to post comments)
Sponsorship Posted May 17, 2011 19:24 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] FWIW, I never apply to a conference as a "journo" - I apply as a member of the community. I have never really seen how the decisions are made, but I believe conference organizers apply the same approach to us as to anybody else: how much will the event be improved by our presence?A reasonable case could certainly be made for better disclosure of travel sponsorship, anyway.
Sponsorship Posted May 17, 2011 19:40 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Hmm, okay you personally don't go to conferences strictly as a journalist. Fair enough. But in this particular case Jake hasn't self assessed himself to be an Ubuntu contributor. So in this particular case, Jake went there primarily as a journalist covering a story.
And indeed having press at an event does add value for the journalist and the organizer and the readership. I would not suggest otherwise. But there are ethical considerations for the industry to consider when journalists are dependent on sponsorships from organizing entities.
I believe it would be adequate disclosure for anyone who attends and event and is sponsored to attend an event should disclose their sponsorship, whether they attended strictly as a contributor to participate or as a journalist to cover the story, or as a mix of both. It is good practice for a number of reason to disclose sponsorship depending on your particular situation as a sponsored individual. The GNOME devs who write personal blogs do a pretty good job consistently tagging GNOME Foundation sponsorships for events they attend and write about for example, though for completely different reasons than the reasons I would expect a journalist to disclose sponsorship to their readership.
-jef
Sponsorship Posted May 17, 2011 21:42 UTC (Tue) by mgross (subscriber, #38112) [Link]
I am very glad LWN gets sponsorships to attend and report what happens at these events. After reading through half of this thread I feel like I'm being trolled by a tinfoil hat.
Sponsorship Posted May 18, 2011 2:02 UTC (Wed) by nzjrs (subscriber, #35911) [Link]
> In fact I'm actually following up on a gripe about journo sponsorship made
> by a journo who is most assuredly in the Ubuntu camp
I'm presuming you are referring to the OMGUbuntu folks.
I think elevating or equating OMG with LWN is an insult to the quality and depth of reporting at LWN.
I guess I don't see what mystery there is to get to the bottom of.
If LWN was picked because they were better (more technical, more thorough) journalists then I cant disagree. If they were picked because it was their turn then I have no objection. I can't imagine a cynical third option (if the goal was to provide positive coverage) that would result in LWN being chosen over OMG.
Sponsorship Posted May 18, 2011 3:38 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
I'm not suggesting there's anything sinister or malevolent going on. I don't believe there is a tit-for-tat arrangement in place here or anything like that. And I don't think its a problem that Jake was sponsored to attend insofar as Canonical planned a budget for press separate from contributors. I'll try to verify that with Canonical peeps outside LWN. If any of them will actually talk to me still.
But I am stating that we'll all benefit from adequate disclosure about sponsorship. And I personally think the LWN team is probably the best example of journalistic standards in our little pocket of spacetime. And since I think that, I also think they'd listen to a reasonable request that such disclosures be made a common practice when such sponsorship occurs. Trust me, I'm not making a direct comparison between LWN and any other journalistic effort. There's no comparison.
To his credit, Jake didn't drag his feet about answering the question about sponsorship when I asked it. Asked and answered, no hedging no backpedaling..just a straight up answer..even though they know he openned himself up to criticism with the answer. I can't expect anything more than that. It's refreshing to get a clean answer even when the question is challenging in nature.
I'm not going to hold a grudge for the LWN team for not thinking about sponsorship disclosure as a matter of policy up till this point. I certainly didn't ever think about it before now. But I am thinking about it, and I think there's a reasonable chance they'll consider making disclosure part of their standard operating policy.
-jef
Sponsorship Posted May 18, 2011 4:01 UTC (Wed) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> even though they know he openned himself up to criticism with
> the answer
I never really considered that, exactly. I have at various points thanked sponsors in my articles from conferences, typically in some kind of wrap-up article. But, I am sure I have forgotten more than a few times as well.
I have no problem "disclosing" that kind of information at all. But I am surprised that some think it is really all that significant in terms of determining biases. We all have biases, and most of what goes into those biases cannot be quantified by things like 'were sponsored to go to XYZ conference by ABC org'. There are plenty of other, less visible things that *could* be contributing to my biases (corporate subscriptions and advertising are two obvious possibilities).
In order to create a bias filter for a site or a writer, I think you have to read the material and compare it to what else you know of the subject of the article and go from there. Over some period of time, you will get a feel for where the biases are, and whether you trust the site/writer to, generally, accurately report things. I can certainly disclose that someone paid for some of the expenses to get me to a place where I could cover an event, but for all you know they (or a competitor) were handing me $100 bills hourly.
It just seems obvious to me that the only way to really figure out what the biases of a given writer/publication are is by reading it and forming your own opinions. Finding out about sponsorships might seem like it helps, and maybe it does, but it's really no substitute for reading and thinking about what's written.
jake
|
|||||||||||||