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, how on earth did you know?

Hi a Crow road ,

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

Exactly edam.

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

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.

thanks for the info hq re:relative rarity of guests paying for webchats. OK racket is an exaggeration but i do have a lot sympathy with professional writers being cheesed off at being expected to write for free.

I don't think anyone should be asked to write, for the potential profit of others, for free, and I think Nick Cohen was perfectly within his rights to decline taking part in the webchat (despite the fact it could have furthered a cause he is concerned about - if paid - it seems). I think he was wrong to accuse MN of racketeering. I dislike his tone in that article. I wonder how much he was paid or it?

So essentially, he only cares to write about things he will get paid for writing about. There is never a cause that needs discussing no matter what the fee? (Or lack of!)

I am glad he said no to the webchat.

if a teacher refuses to give your kid extra coaching for nothing do you assume they're a shit teacher who doesn't care about their profession?

He asked to get paid for a professional assignment. fuck all to do with caring about a cause or not.

Who is Nick Cohen ?

xmas - but people do get paid for talking about a subject, just as much as writing. Broadcast journalists, for starters. Contributors on radio and TV programmes. Talking on a subject that you know about is a professional skill as much as writing about it. Otherwise radio stations would be in trouble.

A webchat may be a little difference as half the content is provided by the people asking questions - but that's a little like a phone-in show. Not quite. But sort of.

Who is nick Cohen

I strongly disagree (oh, you guessed? ) that there's no distinction between a webchat and a published piece of journalism.

The commissioned article is a one-way affair. The author does preliminary research, hones her phrases, counts her words and edits, then her work is edited again before publishing. It's more like a performance than a conversation.

In a webchat, the guest responds to questions from her eager public. It is a conversation, not a performance. Again, if a person chooses not to converse with us: fine. But it's pretentious and erroneous to equate the conversation with the performance. If I go down the pub with you and we talk about my specialist topic, do you expect to pay me? No, because I'm choosing to exchange views with you. If you want me to write a feature about it for your medium, then I will put a lot of work into it and you will pay me.

Heh, this issue has just reminded me of the numerous authors I know, who avoid social situations because they're afraid of accidentally giving an idea away! Numpties. What's the betting Mr Cohen is like that?

Eden, I don't equate broadcast journalism to having a web chat, but that's just me.

To be honest I'd never heard of Nick Cohen before today. Now I know he's a bit of a nobber. Everyday is an education.

FWIW I get paid to do my job, but not when I speak at conferences. People are interested in my experience and I'm willing to share. If I asked to be paid and they said no (not that I would) I wouldn't go and call the conference organisers "racketeers" in an industry magazine.

Has he apologised yet for claiming that he was asked for payment? Not that I would expect him to... yeah he's a bit of a knob isn't he? Regardless of the issues of writers not being paid to provide content or whether it's applicable here or not, lying about something to make it seem more sensational isn't exactly honest journalism is it?

^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.^

So if an author talks about their opinions, do they get paid?
If a celeb talks about their opinions (eg Joanna Lumley on the subject of Gurkhas) do they get paid?
If an author's book is about their opinions do they get paid?

It's very disingenuous to imply that there is some neat line of etiquette that MNHQ have breached. You may disagree with their approach but it's not some horrendous act of blatant unfairness. At worst they're in a grey area.

Stupid italics.

Never heard of NC before, but is he normally obtuse?
At least Richard Bacon was savvy enough to realise that MN was a bonanza for his self-publicity if he got it right (RB didn't get it right, but that's by the by).

I would be willing to do a webchat on Mumsnet. I feel it would boost my profile.