Policywonk's MN rep at 'Commentariat vs Bloggertariat: who's winning?'

[GeraldineMumsnet]

It's on Monday evening and the panel line-up is: David Aaronovitch (Times commentator), Martin Bright (New Deal of the Mind founder, and blogger), Iain Dale (political blogger and publisher), Mick Fealty (political blogger) and Anne Spackman (Times' comment editor).

Any points you'd like PW to make on your behalf?

If we are simply discussing 'commentators paid by national newspapers' versus 'commentators who are self-funding', that seems rather reductive.

A good paid-commentator will be better than a bad self-funded-commentator. A bad paid-commentator will be worse than a good self-funded-commentator.

The former is more likely, since a reasonably high standard amongst the first group is likely, in that someone has already considered them good enough to pay.

A good self-funded-blogger will be more inclined to say the unsayable than one who takes Murdoch's (or anyone else's) shilling - until they start relying on advertising for income and have to toe that line.

Which is almost inevitable unless they are independently wealthy - and that circumstance would bring its own ethical questions.

So it's all much of a muchness.

Also, in a spirit of absolute honesty, can I just say that I skimmed the last few pages of the lightbulb thread, and though I'm really sad that Ruty felt so attacked, I must say that I didn't see anything more unpleasant than heated debate. I didn't see anyone insult anyone else, I don't think. I don't think UQD was being actively rude.

I think people have to be able to challenge the fundamentals of any belief, don't they? However reductive (2nd time today) that might be within the context of a broader debate.

Ah, I see, gu.

In print media and on the television there are quite strict rules that allow us to delineate advertising from editorial content and actual programmes. Regulations such as these give us a little more confidence in knowing when to trust - they are a good filter aiding the reliability of MSM

The Guardian got into trouble with the regulators a while ago for some very right-on looking adverts that looked very 'newsy' and featured social enterprises, showing how their work had been supported by such-and-such a product/service (I can't remember the details I'm afraid -- can anyone else?) It turned out that some of the social enterprises involved hadn't been aware of how they were being used to create an 'advertisment promotion' rather than a straight news story. Guardian was reprimanded (as I recall???)

What similar regulations relate to blogging and give us reason to feel confident that commercial web content is distinct from straight user-generated content?

The reason I ask is the current Waitrose Fishchat on MN. It appears alongside all the other threads and is not marked as advertisement. Plainly everyone will know that Waitrose have an axe to grind and will be properly sceptical. BUT ... if Waitrose have paid for that slot (have they Justine?) is it right that it should appear on the board as just another thread? Should its commercial status be made explicit? Should posters be clearly informed that they are participting in a paid-for advertisement?

Are there any regulations or voluntry codes on this issue? The worry is that what looks like a neutral forum, which contributions standing or falling on their merits, might be one in which a louder voice is secured by payment. I've no problem with ads, just a little worried about ads dressed up as something else, both on MN and in the context of this wider discussion..

at 'fishchat'

I was pondering a new topic the other day (brought on by my clog-wearing proclivities): Am I Being Unfashionable?

That's interesting Wittering.

Recently, this kidn of thing has been a hot topic in the blargasphere: bloggers have been paid (in cash or product) to post on the subject of certain brands/products, and haven't declared it.

Of course, everyone's saying that they've just been paid to give their entirely neutral opinion, but predictably it reflected very badly on both blog, and brand, both of which lost credibility.

This matters, I think. The line between Mumsnet as a community and Mumsnet as a private commercial enterprise is sometimes necessarily rather blurred; which makes it all the more important to be transparent about things like this, both from an ethical standpoint, and from a 'asset-protection' one, in terms of ensuring that the key demographic community doesn't start to feel resentful.

no real conclusion Quatt - damp squib. Decided to first try and bullshit translate previous work into guest-lecturing, and got some responses, but all v vague - also RL got in way. Need to up my game again. Think have decided agianst phd but might do MA next year if I can join late.. So all still up in air. Have at least got general plan though so not totally downcast. Thanks for asking, myd ear.

I tried to get Fishwife but someone's already got it. And I doubt she's wearing Crocs.

Interestng point onebat about the bloggers that were paid.

If the Waitrose Fishchat is a paid-for spot (is it Justine?) and posts favourable to Waitrose get incorporated into Waitrose publicity material, then the creators of those posts might feel sewn up like a kipper very aggrieved that the terms of the discussion weren't clearer. It is one thing to find your gems of toddler-rearing info incorporated later into a book, as an incidental consequence of an online conversation in which participants gave and received support without any commercial structuring of the convo; quite another when the convo was set up explicitly to further the PR objectives of a major supermarket.

Again, I don't have a problem with ads existing. We all know that Mumsnet is a business, and from the owners' point of view the user-generated content is there to pull in hits and so make the advertising space profitable for them. In that respect the community is incidental, or rather it is a means to an end. But unless ads are clearly labelled as such its members will start to feel ill-treated and disappear.

(If the Fishchat isn't a paid-for slot it is still slightly uncomfortable. The livechats have always been about product placement but this one feels too corporate and makes me want to know a little more about the guest's expectations of the slot.)

It would be really really wrong of me to point you to this really really interesting blog with non-commercial commentary on, um, stuff, wouldn't it? It has no agenda, nope. None at all. Nothing to do with profile raising, doing good recruiting students

Yes, glad you got the last word, Quattro

Yes bravo, quattro

Hello all - sorry for delay on getting back on this, I had to find out from Jules (sales) if it was indeed a paid-for chat or not! Turns out it is, but at a reduced rate (£1,000) intented to cover cost of admin of it only really - ie editorial time spent liaising, moderating, archiving and publishing (plus fruit shoots and sausage rolls for the chat itself). Strictly entre nous, and not to be shared with Waitrose PR people we would have had them on paid for or not because I think it's such an interesting subject and the movie End of the Line is so hot at the moment. But I take the point about clarity and maybe we should add a sponsored by button to all paid-for webchats so you know which ones are and which aren't (it's about 50-50)?

Nb with regard to louder voices being secured by payment, I'm not sure that holds when members are free to contribute freely to the chat and raise whatever opinions they have on the issues in hand. If we were in the business of deleting criticism then I could see that would be problematic but we make it clear to anyone who comes on for a chat that we have absolutely no control over you whatsoever .

Hope that explains things - we'll get to work on a sponsored by button.

is that the wrong thread?

I don't think so - was responding to wittering's post earlier down?

OH i thought you meant to put it on the fish thread.
apols.

Thank you Justine. That is a very full answer, and the 'sponsored by' tag will be valuable. Great.

Im I being a bit naive, though, to be sad to have it confirmed that there are 'paid for' threads? I had hoped that I was wrong about that and that the distinction between forum content (main body of talk pages) and advertisements (flashing around at the side)was in fact well observed. I hope that the 'sponsored by' tag will be clear enough -- that it will be comparable in clarity to the kind of visual distinctions that newspapers are obliged to maintain.

Re louder voice, of course within the thread itself the paying guest takes her life in her hands with the rest of us. But, the livechat is stickied, it gets puffs on the homepage, and it gets a well-friendly op from MNHQ. That's all I meant by louder voice. It isn't a massive advantage, but it isn't nothing either, and more than a very few paid-for threads would surely distort the board. If the paid-for threads really looked like adverts it wouldn't matter.

Yes I can see that Wittering but we only do webchats if we think the subject/ person involved is going to be of interest/ useful. We have turned down an awful lot of folks either on the grounds that they are dull or just wrong (eg Macdonalds).

Having said that we think companies who get the chance to engage should pay a bit for the privilege precisely because, as you say, they are getting air time. It's the same principal as product tests really, which we also do on Talk. Ideally we are always looking for a happy combination of interesting subject matter, something for you (eg Jogglers or Dysons) and a wee something for us to meet the costs. It's a fine balancing act of course and we are very aware of the risks of messing with the sanctity of Mumsnet Talk believe me!

Oh dear, is this about the religious thread?

I could see that people had been offended before I joined in, but then it seemed to go alright again. UQD, onager and I were having quite a good discussion about religion. Poppity too, Lucia and loads of others. But then the earlier incident was brought up again which was unfortunate. I don't know what was said to Olympede, I didn't delve into it too deeply. But it was a shame as I was enjoying the thread, it's been a long time since I've had such an interesting debate.

And whilst plenty of people disagreed with me, none were personally offensive to me.

Oh, yes, product tests too. I'd forgotten them. And things like the O2 survey thread.

Not sure that 'sponsored by' is the best terminology. It suggests nurture, support (like a sponsored walk). These are adverts.