Oh Mumsnet you bunch of racketeers, you have upset Nick Cohen in the Spectator

There's a difference, I feel between being asked to write an article about a topic and being asked if you'd like to talk to people about a topic. The former should be paid, the latter not.

Saying no as you feel you should be paid for talking about a topic is one thing, accusing people of behaving illegally for asking you is another.

Exactly edam.

If I was that way inclined, I could admire him too, but I don't want to.

Maryz - but it's a neat approach as he has been paid for the article. So he's managed to make a living out of writing about the abortive webchat. As a former freelance, I salute him.

I think it's an interesting debate about the nature and value of content. I'm a hack - I get paid for writing (and commissioning and editing). I disapprove of Huffpost and publishers who expect people to write for free. Ariana Huffington doesn't work for free, why should the people who provide her content?

However, being interviewed about your work can be different. I have been interviewed by national broadcasters about articles I've written - have only ever been offered a fee by the Beeb. BUT I was an employee of my publisher so broadcast interviews were part of my job and I didn't expect payment (and didn't take any from the Beeb). Equally I know some of the other interviewees were freelance and treated as 'contributors' who did get paid.

With a webchat the question is, who is providing the content - the interviewee or the posters asking questions? Or both? And who, if anyone, should get paid? If the interviewee is promoting a book, or a show, then clearly they are getting some value and don't get paid, any more than I pay high profile people when I interview them. But is the webchat interviewee a 'contributor' akin to a broadcast interviewee who is paid - e.g. a guest reviewing the papers on Newsnight?

But Viva, he didn't have to do it.

He could say "thanks for the invitation, but I see no gain to me in doing this and I don't care enough about the subject to put myself out so I will politely decline".

But no, that's too difficult. He had to write an entire pompous article about how valuable his time is and how MUmsnet are trying to screw not just him, but all their guests, over.

It's a bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

Does Nick Cohen have something to sell? Ie, is there a benefit from him doing an unpaid web chat? I'm guessing no but I've never heard of him. If he writes for the guardian he's probably thinking that a web chat here isn't going to make people rush out and buy the Guardian. Even if it did, does he care? Its not his paper. MUmsnetters aren't going to write to the editor and ask for more Nick Cohen articles.

When Justine goes on Newsnight, etc unpaid there is a direct benefit to her business. More people hear of MN, they visit, she gets more advertising revenue.

I see his point.

Hi a Crow road ,

Are you a name changer or are you new to mumsnet?

Hothead, how on earth did you know?

Sorry, pressed post too soon -

Mumsnet have done nothing wrong, but Nick Cowen has by publicly accusing them of acting illegally when they haven't.

The Spectator, where Nick Cohen blogs, doesn't pay people for appearing on podcasts. As a matter of principle, Cohen should stop writing for them at once!!!!

Once again you avoid my point which is.

We as a society have attached monetary value to an opinion that is to some extent popular and respected by an audience.

When you have a webchat about MN, you are not providing the content of Mumsnet for free.

When an author has an interview about their book they are not expected to read their book to you

When an musician has an interview about a new album they are not expected to provide their music for free.

And on the earlier point where you agreed with garlicbaubles that nick isn't producing the content. You're right, its not just the subject of the webchat producing content, its the participants too, praps you should pay them.

BTW IT'S EVEN WORSE IF YOU PAY THE MNHQer TRANSCRIBING THE WEBCHAT BUT NOT THE JOURNALIST

Whatever about the rights or wrongs of paying him, there are two unarguable points:

1. he could (and did) just say no, so what's the problem

2. accusing Mumsnet of racketeering is completely incorrect (see Justine's reply)

Therefore, in this brouhaha, Mumsnet have done nothing wrong.

I'm really glad that cohen has brought this issue up because the blurring of commercial content and community-originated discussion is getting more and more intense. There's nothing wrong with any of the commercial content, provided everything is very clearlly labelled for what it is

Are we all going to start charging for the content we provide, then?

And if Mumsnet are going to try and get away with twisting the meaning of "content" to mean a "webchat" isn't content then its just as valid for Nick Cohen to twist the word racket to describe Mumsnet trying to get him to work for free.

I cordially agree to disagree with @MNHQ

You seem to value an article on it's format rather than its content. Unless Cohens Q&A was going to be centred around what he had for breakfast, I think it was likely that he was going to have a similar discussion with Mumsnet users as Spectator readers.

I don't believe a change in format removes the value of the opinion of a journalist, and I don't believe anyone who worked for a newspaper does either.

p.s. I am a new user to MN, brought to the site b/c of this debate.

Arse.

"from home in your onesie"

I think the equivalent of an opinion piece is a guest blog, not a webchat.

Thanks Sarah. It's one of the points he raises though, that you offer "no cost on either side" but he'd incur costs to get to MNHQ (an hour each way travelling, I think he says). Either he wasn't offered a "from home in your on-side" option, or he is misrepresenting MN again.