Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

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

10 replies

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea · 24/12/2013 09:49

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.

Go to post
MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 10:35

Hey folks, just to clarify a couple of points - we'd never charge guests such as Nick Cohen to take part in webchats - only big corporations such as, for example, British Gas.

As you might imagine, we were pretty disappointed with the piece. Justine wrote to Cohen and Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, about it; no response as yet, but I've copied in the text of her email below, in case you're interested to read. On a jollier note, merry Christmas, one and all Xmas Smile

Justine's mail

Dear Nick,
I think you've written an extraordinarily unfair piece about Mumsnet. I'm sure you have some very valid gripes about the blogging economy and what it's done to writers' pay, but you've conflated that with something entirely different in your piece.

We asked you for a webchat, not to write a piece of journalism. A webchat is an online interview. We've conducted many of those with individuals over the years - from politicians, to writers, to health professionals, to campaigners and celebrities, and no one has ever asked to be paid. Not one person out of hundreds and hundreds. Neither have we ever asked any one of those people to pay us. We genuinely believed you might value a platform to talk about an interesting issue which you seemed to care about - to rally folk to the argument. Plus we thought you would be an all-round interesting webchat guest.

We do charge big companies for corporate webchats because it takes time and resource to run and promote them, and we think corporations can afford to pay for that privilege. Corporate webchats are in fact quite rare on Mumsnet - we did no more than a handful last year - and we only ever do them if it's on an interesting topic - eg the horsemeat scandal. We did many, many more non-sponsored with interesting individuals like yourself.

In your piece you suggested that we wanted you/ writers like you to pay for webchats. But you know full well we didn't - we merely tried to point out that many thought there was value in chatting with the MN audience. As I say, no-one else has ever asked to be paid, and as I'm sure you're aware, the Guardian and Spectator don't pay for online webchats and interviews etc either.

Aside from the piece itself - the headline is really dodgy I think. Racketeers, really?

A racketeer by definition is
A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities.
intr.v. rack·et·eered, rack·et·eer·ing, rack·et·eers
To carry on illegal business activities that involve crimes.

I'm struggling to see how you can accurately and fairly headline your piece as Mumsnet Racketeers? What kind of illegal business is going on here? We didn't offer you a fee to have an online chat with our users (who don't pay to come on the site). I don't remember the Spectator or Guardian ever offering to pay me for an interview. It's a hugely misleading, horribly unfair and damaging headline - plus it's being retweeted everywhere by outraged journalists believing we are charging our online interviewees. Would you have another look at it, please?

Best,
Justine

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 11:15

Hey ACrowRoad - the thing is, it wasn't a piece of writing that we were asking him for - we wanted to invite him on the site as a webchat guest. The Guardian pays its contributors, but it doesn't pay interviewees or webchat guests; I worked there for 13 years, so can say this with confidence. Also, I've never been paid by the BBC for doing an interview, and nor would I expect to be.

As Justine said in her mail, Cohen raises some fair points about the effect of the internet and blogging on journalism as an industry, but he's eliding them with a different issue - whether participants should be paid a fee for taking part in a webchat/interview. Interviewees weren't paid for their participation before the arrival of the internet/online webchats; why ought they to be now?

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 11:15

or what garlicbaubles said Xmas Grin

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 11:57

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"?

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 13:31

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 Grin

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.

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 14:31

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).

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 15:22

@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.

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 15:38

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.

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 16:11

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 Grin; 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 Xmas Smile

MNHQ

SarahMumsnet · 24/12/2013 16:14

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.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread