Image courtesy of Chris Hambly via Flickr
We’ve all read TechCrunch’s take on the embargo and its continued love/hate relationship with the Public Relations profession. It was also only a week or so ago that this gem of a video went viral (NSFW language). I must add I absolutely love but prefer the PR response to it – I’m biased.
While both of these raise some important questions the media should ask of us as a profession and we, of ourselves, I believe the more recent blog post from Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb, likely raises some far more pressing ones. And this time it’s of the media.
In short, Marshall penned a piece about three startups stories he managed to get the jump on. He posted his stories long before any of the other major, yet relevant blogging and news outlets around did – he cited the likes of Mashable, All Things Digital and TechCrunch. In fact he is still ahead of them all because none of those listed have covered the news, despite the potential relevancy to their respective readerships.
No big deal you say – they just chose not to cover the news or missed it – so what? Well, yes in fact, it is a very big deal if you believe Marshall’s theory, which suggests that these outlets chose not to cover it because RWW got there first.
[Cue sinister music...]
While I would love to take sides (Team Marshall, if you were wondering, if only for having the (ahem) balls to bring this conversation up in such a public forum), that is not the point of this post. Consider for a second the implications of what this might mean, if indeed this is true. If you’re still thinking, stop, Marshall covers that later on in his post:
“The logical end result is that startups will actively avoid us and resent us for breaking stories if it precludes their getting any coverage at all in bigger media outlets. So by acting contrary to the interests of startups and readers, these other blogs put us in an antagonistic relationship with the startups. “
A worrying thought indeed. So called ‘new media’s’ credibility takes a hit at a time when that should only be happening to traditional print media and startups looking to get the coverage they deserve miss out unnecessarily. Oh yeah – then there are us PR people who have to tread even more of a minefield as we council which publications our clients should brief and when.
The actual blog post is just the start of the conversation but one that has helped cultivate some great comments from the likes of Alex Wilhelm, Robert Scoble, Tom Foremski and Louis Gray, among others. Of the many, two standout with the first being from Tom Foremski, former FT reporter and editor at Silicon Valley Watcher:
“The danger is in your last paragraph and it’s brave of you to raise that point. I’ve had The Wall Street Journal not cover a story they said they would because I got a scoop and broke it first. That policy has changed at the WSJ, but, yes, you are right it is worrisome. And it is better not to discuss this issue in a public forum, because it could be very damaging if gets out, even if it isn’t true.”
This last part really struck me as odd and something that goes against everything the media has asked for from so many parties in recent years: Transparency. So allow me to respectively disagree with you Tom but isn’t this exactly the forum that this kind of conversation should be occurring? One where people can weigh in with (hopefully) educated comments and allow others to hear directly from those that work within the industry? I, for one, appreciate the calculated risk Marshall has taken airing his frustrations and concerns about the industry.
The second comes from Mr Scoble:
“For Arrington this is business and by forcing PR people to not do exclusives, or to offer the exclusive to Techcrunch, he can win because he makes his business one that can’t be easily attacked. “
Awesome, it’s like the Apple App store of the media. Just what we need – an “it’s my ball and if we don’t play by my rules I’m going home and taking the ball with me” mentality.
Me, I would prefer to know that any story will get the coverage it deserves. That is to say, it gets covered because it warrants it, regardless of a journalist’s ego or a publication’s stance believing that they can bully companies into coming to them first or not at all.