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

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

Sorry if someone has already started a thread about this already.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/12/the-mumsnet-racketeers/

You wouldn't pay the poor man.

FWIW I think you were fair - you stated your policy, he was free to take it or leave it.

It boils down to this: You approached a professional writer to offer commentary on a topical issue and expected him to do so for free.

Regardless if you call it a "web chat" or an "interview", you asked him to create content for you in order to generate traffic for your website.

I'll ask again - do you expect to be paid for the work you do?

What about if I interviewed Nick Cohen, for a piece in the Guardian, on his views on gender segregation in universities, ACrowRoad? Ought he then to be paid a fee? As garlicbaubles says, doing a webchat isn't "creating content", it's answering questions/having a discussion.

Would it make a difference if he weren't "a professional writer"; if he were, for example, an MP, or the head of a charity? Do you feel all webchat guests should be paid, or only "professional writers"?

ACrowRoad, Justine and Carrie are frequently asked by the BBC and other outlets to offer commentary, via interview, on topical issues. They have very clearly stated that they are not paid for those contributions and nor do they expect to be.

Typical empty rubbish from Cohen. So, he's fine to write for Standpoint, The Guardian etc and affiliate himself with organisations such as Just Journalism - all of which ran or currently run unpaid internship schemes. Now, when something actually effects him, he decides to boycott a site. So he'll be boycotting the aforementioned sites 'until they treat staff fairly' too will he?

It also speaks volumes about how committed Cohen is to these causes he writes about. He'll talk about the problems of gender segregation, but only if there is a fee involved. Otherwise, he can't be bothered. What a hero.

He's absolutely right to complain about writers being expected to write for free! And absolutely wrong to say that's what Mumsnet asked of him.

I agree with garlicbaubles

Yep - the going rate at the Guardian is about seventy quid (as per the link above) and as a comparator BBC R4 Today programme pays about £90 to an interviewee. As I've already said in pretty much any other professional outfit this wouldn't even be an issue.

You can dress it up however you wish but at the end of day you're asking someone (and yes - in this instance they are a professional writer though the concept applies regardless) to use the written word to express an opinion with the intention of using that opinion to drive traffic to the website.

Instead we have the frankly embarrassing site of watching Justine Roberts, head of one of the largest websites in the country attempting to weasel out of this on twitter on the basis of semantics. And for what? £100?

He didn't approach you, he isn't trying to flog a book or a film, this isn't some fluff PR piece. If there's no value in this - why ask him in the first place over some random off the street?

I'll ask the question again as you seem so unwilling to answer it; do you expect to be paid for the work you do?

And finally:

doing a webchat isn't "creating content"

You honestly believe this?

There's nothing on your Guardian link about payment to interviewees, ACrow

It isn't normal to pay for interviews. It's so abnormal that presenters often highlight an interviewee's demand for payment.

You might get your train fare paid.

As a journalist I am angry about the increasing pressure on us to work for nothing or beans - and that movement is being entirely driven by online outlets.

I tell all journalists I know that if their talent is being sought then they must ask for a fee and if none is forthcoming then they should decline.

It doesn't matter that he wasn't being asked to write. He was being asked to contribute and that merits a contributor's fee.

Journalists who review the newspapers on BBC, Sky etc aren't writing articles. They still get paid though.

I totally agree with him on the Huffington Post issue as well.

I've been interviewed in relation to books I wrote - should I have demanded payment for speaking?

I maintain that a webchat is 'speaking'.

ACrowRoad - I answered your question, in my first post! I've never been paid for an interview I've done; nor would I expect to be. I was a guest on Open Book on the BBC the other week and wasn't paid for that - nor did I expect to be. I expect to be paid for my job, which I am. I don't expect to be paid to do an interview/take part in a discussion.

And again: the Guardian doesn't pay interviewees or webchat guests. I know; I worked there

We asked Nick Cohen if he'd like to come on as a webchat guest, as he'd written on the issue and seemed exercised by it, as were many MNers. Of course, it's up to him whether or not he wants to take part, and we totally respect his decision not to. But as Justine said in her mail, to suggest MNHQ are racketeers because we didn't offer him a fee to take part in a discussion is, in our view, unjust.

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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

DeckTheHallsWithBoughsOfHorry - it's handy if guests can make it to MNHQ, for us and, we think, for them, because we can get them all set up/grapple with any tech issues in person. But there's no obligation for them to come here (not least because, as you point out, they might be on the other side of the country). They can do it from bed in their PJs if they so choose - and many do (from home, at any rate; no firm evidence on the bed/PJs side of things, if truth be told).

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.

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 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!

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.

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.