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.

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.

Sorry Mumsnet, I bet you were hoping for a quiet Christmas Eve .

I still think you're right.

@tmwiii

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.

Possibly this is where the divergent views are arising from here: we're looking at the same thing from different directions. Is a webchat more like a written-through piece of journalism, where the guest is the author and therefore should be paid, or is it more like an interview, where those asking the questions (on newspapers the journalists, on Mumsnet the posters) are leading the discussion? In our view, it's the latter: we think your questions - which are frequently different from the questions a professional journalist might ask - are what differentiates MN webchats from press interviews, and what makes them uniquely interesting and valuable. That's not to imply there isn't great value in the guests themselves - again, as with print interviews, you want to interview interesting people. But ultimately, as with great journalism, the greatness lies in the probing questions - otherwise we could just read a column, as someone said upthread.

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.

They're not, janetbb. As Justine said, we only ask big corporations, such as British Gas, or Sainsbury's, or Mothercare, to pay. We've done under 10 such chats in the last few years, I gather, out of hundreds; don't have the exact info at my fingertips, and everyone else is liquored up doing festive things just now, so can't call in more knowledgeable types, but we can and will do this as soon as folk are back online.

"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?

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.

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

Arse.

"from home in your onesie"

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.

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.

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

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

ACrowRoad - yes, as I said, I expect to get paid for my job, but I don't expect to get paid (and don't get paid) for any interviews I do in connection with it. Also again, the Guardian (and the its sister paper, the Observer, where Nick Cohen is a columnist) don't pay guests for webchats. I don't know of anywhere else that does, either; do correct me if I'm wrong though.

DeckTheHallsWithBoughsOfHorry - not sure whether Cohen was offered the onesie option ; if he wasn't, that's our bad, obviously - it's always an option.

tmwiii welcome! Again, I think this goes back to the question of what a webchat is; I don't think it can be viewed as equivalent to an article. Does it make a difference if I tell you that if webchat guests do come into MNHQ, an MNHQer types for them? They talk, and the fast-fingered MNHQer transcribes. (Obviously this isn't obligatory, but I can't remember the last guest who typed themselves). If you remove the element of actual writing, does that change things?

I really do need to go and wrap some presents now, but will check back in later. Merry Christmases, one and all

Fair point, ButThereAgain; we'll certainly look at the labelling on Watch With Mumsnet, which is sponsored by Netflix. The hub is labelled clearly (Watch With Mumsnet), but the latest talk thread isn't. We'll sort this out (though prob not today). Thanks for saying.

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.

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

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!!!!

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.