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

"I'm trying to understand the distinction between a webchat and a published piece of journalism. "

There isn't one. It's just an attempt by Mumsnet to redefine what in any other media outlet would be called an opinion piece and to get their content on the cheap.

One thing I will say about this whole debacle is that it highlights the complete lack of transparency on what is advertising and what is "community content" on Mumsnet.

SarahMumsnet - " I expect to be paid for my job, which I am."

And yet you expect Nick Cohen to work for free?

Nick Cohen's acceptance or refusal is not the issue.

The issue is that all previous webchats are now under the shadow of being puffed-up PR by the respective authors.

It would be honourable for Mumsnet to be explicit in separating the 'genuine' from the inauthentic 'product-placement' versions.

Until this is clarified, we have to assume that 'invited' Mumsnet authors are self-funded marketing strategists.

Hothead - the hope ( a futile one no doubt) is that if enough people refuse to work for nothing then people will eventually stop asking them to.

I'm trying to understand the distinction between a webchat and a published piece of journalism.

I completely understand the practical differences of production, but from a more abstract viewpoint, don't webchats and published articles fulfil the same purpose? Isn't a journalist having a conversation with an audience, seeking to educate, entertain and inform? The audience listens to that journalist for their expertise, viewpoint, research hours, etc.

The way traditional news outlets are encouraging their consumers to interact with their content and authors, through comment sections and twitter, those lines between published journalism and webchats are a little murkier than perhaps MNHQ would like it to be. I don't think it's inconceivable that large media corps. might view proliferation of webchats as easy way to reduce costs.

I think hosters of content who believe exposure is sufficient recompense to a journalists work, have an inflated sense of the value of users. Assuming I have not, nor will I ever, read an copy of Nuts, should they pay ME if I agreed to read it, as it is valuable exposure? Where is the financial guarantee of exposure?

To say, Nick Cohen could just say no, is unfair. Your assuming a level of financial stability on the part of journalists. Being Mumsnet, I'm sure you know the saying about mothers and assumptions. After a while, the situation might occur when, yes, journalists are financially stable enough to work for free.

When Justine or other MN people speak for free in various papers and on TV, part of their motive is surely that they want to engage in promotional activity on behalf of their company? It is fair to expect people like Nick Cohen to act similarly if they too are marketing a product, but not otherwise. Journalists frequently are marketing a product, I guess (even if the product is only themselves) but plenty of people don't want, or don't need, to spend professional talents in self-branding exercises of one sort or another. The trouble is that the internet has kind of created an expectation that everyone wants this kind of self-promotional exposure. Depressing for Cohen but perhaps unfair of him to treat MN as being different from the essence of internet enterprise in this respect.

That's also true of newspapers, BTA, both online and off. The advertorial & sponsored content areas of business have been growing for a very long time - most of my work was in this area, as long as 30 years ago! For publishers, maintaining a balance between commercial revenues and control of the editorial voice has always been tricky.

I don't think anybody's said Cohen was wrong to turn the webchat down. I'm among those who say he's wrong to accuse MN of asking for free content.

They get that from us, FFS!

I guess it depends who you are inviting onto the webchat. A TV sleb with something to flog, or apolitician with votes to gain fair enough to expect the webchat on a quid pro quo basis: exposure in return for content. But a journalist who makes his living writing columns? I think it is a misjudgement to ask someone like that to show up for free and expand on what they have written professionally. Not racketeering (so Cohen's blog seems rather over the top) but still a feature of this horrible trend across the internet where paid and trained journalism is sidelined by an unpaid commentariat free-for-all. If he was someone centrally involved in the story he was covering it would make sense to ask him to be interviewed about it for free but he isn't: he is a paid reporter of the controversy.

The part of Cohen's blog that resonated most for me, though, was the bit where is said "Justine Roberts told me that she saw no ethical difficulties in breaking down the old barriers between advertising and editorial because she told her readers when she was charging for space." That's precisely what I think isn't clear enough. The Watch with Mumsnet topic, for example (and there is quite a lot of similar content) , seems to be part of an advertising package with Netflix -- there are Netflix adverts and other bits and pieces that coincide with the Watch with Mumsnet thread. But Watch with Mumsnet isn't in the "sponsored discussions" section. Once you have a sponsored discussion section it does rather suggest that all other topics aren't paid for, but it is really hard to see whether or not that is the case with the Watch with Mumsnet stuff. There is a lot of unclarity. The boundaries between discussion and promotional content seem porous with the result that the discussion on MN as a whole is increasingly commodified. It would be good if every thread that was either charged for or provided in exchange for any sort of benefit was clearly marked as such, and that doesn't seem to happen now.

That's a depressingly narrow view, Nancy.

I did interviews because I was passionate about my subject and wanted to help improve awareness. If someone doesn't want to do that, or can't be bothered, fair enough.

Cohen's paid to write opinionated articles. But it's ludicrous to complain he should be paid for having an opinion.

@Ubik1

It would be easier to argue that Cohen would be raising awareness of an important issue - gender segregation at universities. Unfortunately, he seems disinterested unless he gets a fee.

Note to everyone interested in raising awareness of an issue you claim to care passionately about : ask for a fee first, it's the only thing a dedicated campaigner for human rights would do.

How would it financially benefit him though garlic? It wouldn't. In fact he would be out of pocket.

The carrot of 'great publicity' is constantly dangled by organisations wanting you to work for nothing. True if you have a product to flog but utter bollocks if you do not.

Really, Nancy? Maybe Nick Cohen doesn't want or need to attract a phalanx of educated women to his fan base. If he did, the webchat would be a great opportunity. If he's not bothered, all he had to do was say no.

He turned down an opportunity, which wasn't right for him. That's all. He's wrong to say MN was trying to rip him off.

If MNHQ is insisting that webchat guests go to MN Towers, why are expenses not paid?

This is partly a "don't be so London-centric" point.

No you can't argue that. If MN do an interview then it's not unreasonable to think it will gain them a glut of new followers which, in turn, boosts ad revenues and the company coffers etc.

Nothing of any value in NC doing a free webchat.

I think you could argue that nick Cohen is raising his profile by having a webchat with mumsnet thus is getting a benefit 'in kind'