PR Guy Says Bloggers Should Shut Up And Take Press Releases

from the well,-then dept

When we first started Techdirt, one of the things I said clearly on the site was not to send us press releases, as we had no interest in writing about them. Yet, so many PR people clearly chose not to read the site and they send them anyway. They don't read the fact that we don't want press releases -- and in most cases they clearly don't read the site because the press releases obviously are about stuff we never write about. And it just gets worse and worse. These days, my inbox is filled with more press releases than regular email -- and I don't post any of them. You would think that PR people would eventually recognize how inefficient it is to send these press releases -- but since it's so easy to just cc every email address in a press list, they never even think about it. This leads me to write posts trashing PR people. But, of course, that does no good, because (as already established) the PR people who send us press releases obviously don't actually read the site.

While there are some PR people who understand this, and with whom I have a good relationship, the vast majority don't seem to care at all. And, now, some seem to be going in the opposite direction. Romenesko points us to a marketing/PR guy who claims that bloggers with large audiences have a responsibility to just accept these press releases -- even if they have no intention of writing about them:

In my view, a popular, well-read blog de facto takes on some of the public trust that the mainstream media have always assumed.... Why shouldn't I send you a press release? If you've got 2,000 readers, you're like a small newspaper. Newspapers don't complain when we send them press releases. They may throw the release away, but they don't write articles ridiculing the person who had the audacity to send it, as some bloggers do when they get an unwanted release.

Well, we've got a lot more than 2,000 readers, and if we have any sort of de facto "public trust" with our readers, it's to write about what we think they'll find interesting -- and they've made it clear they don't care about press release "fake news." And if we ridicule PR people -- it's not simply for sending us a press release. It's for clearly not reading the site where we ask them not to send us press releases and for not understanding what we want to write about.

We do want story ideas. We have always asked our readers for story ideas. But press releases aren't story ideas. They're attempts to spin a story in a positive manner with a bunch of unwanted and useless information that actually makes our job harder.

The fact is, in a very short time, you've become a key cog in our society's communication machine. You're part of something that's destroying the old model; at the same time, you're being given the opportunity to help create something worthwhile to take its place.

Yes, and part of that "something worthwhile" is getting rid of simply parroting spin from a company PR person. It's about having a real conversation. Spamming people with press releases is part of that "old model" that isn't working. Why do you think it's okay that journalism is changing, but it's just hunky dory that PR people do the same old thing?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that you have an obligation to actually write about what's in press releases. The world will go on whether you tell your readers about XYZ Widgets or not. But understand that you have an audience and people are going to want your ear. Accept that as a compliment, and don't be indignant when it happens.

No. You've got it wrong. We know that we have an audience and people are going to want our ear. And that's why we make it clear how to get our ear. You're the one choosing to ignore the very clear terms of engagement that we've laid out -- and thus, you shouldn't get upset when we point out that you weren't paying attention. Since you seem to think our "ear" is so valuable, isn't it up to you to at least understand how to get that ear to pay attention? If you want to be lazy and not understand, that's not our fault.

Finally, the biggest problem with press releases is simple: they're not actually about getting the ear of the blogger. They're about using the blogger as a one-way path to that blogger's audience. It's missing the point of why many (though certainly not all) bloggers do what they do. They blog to be a part of the conversation -- which is more than a one-way path. It's a multi-directional conversation where everyone gets something out of it. If you stop looking at the blogger as a one-way road to an audience, and realize that the blogger, the readers and the company you represent should all be part of a larger conversation, you might realize just how ineffective press releases are for that purpose.

Filed Under: bloggers, pr, press releases

Lawyer Seriously Slapped Down For SLAPP Attempt Against Librarian Blogger

from the ouch dept

We've covered the concept of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits plenty of times before. These are bogus lawsuits filed to try to bully a critic into shutting up. In one such case, involving an incredibly broad subpoena against a librarian blogger compiling information on the potential link between mercury and autism, a magistrate judge has seriously smacked down the lawyer who filed the subpoena. The blogger had merely published on her blog information about the fees the lawyer in question had received. In response, the lawyer subpoenaed a ridiculous amount of information from her: "all documents pertaining to the setup, financing, running, research, maintaining" of the blog, "including communications with representatives of the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, advocacy groups, non-governmental organizations, political action groups, profit or non-profit entities, journals, editorial boards, scientific boards, academic boards, medical licensing boards, any 'religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations,' and any other 'concerned individuals.'"

The judge quashed the subpoena quickly, but has now hit back really hard on the lawyer, Clifford Shoemaker, for filing it in the first place:

Shoemaker has not offered a shred of evidence to support his speculations. He has, he says, had his suspicions aroused because she has so much information. Clearly he is unfamiliar with the extent of the information which a highly-competent librarian like Ms. Seidel can, and did, accumulate. If Shoemaker wanted to know if Ms. Seidel was in part supported by or provided information by Bayer, he could have inquired of Bayer or limited the Seidel subpoena to that information. Instead he issued the subpoena calling for production of documents and a deposition on the day before he stipulated to dismiss the underlying suit with prejudice. His failure to withdraw the subpoena when he clearly knew that suit was over is telling about his motives. His efforts to vilify and demean Ms. Seidel are unwarranted and unseemly....

I find that Clifford Shoemaker violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) and Rule 45(c)(1).... The 11(b)(1) violation may also violate Virginia's Rules of Professional Conduct .... Clifford J. Shoemaker’s action is an abuse of legal process, a waste of judicial resources and an unnecessary waste of the time and expense to the purported deponent.

The Clerk of Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order, the motion to quash, the show cause order, and the response of Shoemaker and Seidel to the appropriate professional conduct committee of the Virginia State Bar in order that it may be made aware of Clifford J. Shoemaker's conduct and so that those authorities may take whatever action they deem appropriate.

As a sanction from this court, Clifford J. Shoemaker is ordered to attend within three months, a continuing legal education program on ethics and on the discovery rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He is ordered to file a certification of completion of the programs.

Now that's a smackdown.

Filed Under: bloggers, ethics, lawyers, slapp, subpoena

European Politicians Discuss 'The Blogger Problem'

from the are-you-serious? dept

Apparently this got some discussion a few weeks back, but I was just alerted to the fact that some European politicians have been debating how to handle the new media landscape that makes some odd and totally contradictory suggestions which the possibilities of bloggers becoming a problem by "polluting cyberspace." While some of the argument has been blown way out of proportion, there are some things that are very problematic in the way the paper is written.

The oddest contradiction in the piece is the fact that much of it is concerned about the lack of diversity in media these days, and then it seems to see bloggers as a threat, rather than the solution:

"The cases of unrestricted ownership concentration or of scarce content pluralism in the media are endangering cultural diversity and freedom of expression not only within national markets but also at European level. We need therefore strong European commitment to overcome those challenges especially in view of the new technologies and services in the media sector."

One would think that such politicians would then champion the rise of easy publishing platforms that allows anyone, professional or amateur, to join the game. Yet, that doesn't appear to be the case.

"The blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them.... We do not see bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace. I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why."

If I'm reading this right, it appears that these politicians are afraid of media consolidation, because it limits the diversity of voices -- but at the same time, it's afraid of bloggers polluting media, because that diversity of voices might be "bad." Right. In other words, the real fear isn't either the diversity of media or the rise of bad bloggers -- it's just that they're afraid that speech they don't like will become popular, whereas those who agree with them might get drowned out. That would also explain the ridiculous assertion that Europe needs a "right to reply." A sort of cousin of the fairness doctrine, a right to reply is designed to let someone respond if a publication says something about them that they don't like. This isn't the first time this has been proposed in Europe. Way back in 2003, we wrote about plans in Europe to regulate bloggers with a demand for a right to reply.

The thing is, everyone already has a right to reply: your own website. A right to reply makes sense when there isn't a way for you to reply. With the internet, however, that's just not the case any more. And, yes, some people will say "but, if the original report is on a popular publication, and your site doesn't get any traffic, then that's not the same." However, that's inaccurate as well. In this day and age, if the media says something incorrect about you, and you write up your own thoughts, it seems that others are only too eager to hype it up and show the news report was wrong. You just need to let some other folks know that you've responded, and the word spreads pretty quickly.

Filed Under: bloggers, europe, media ownership, regulations, right to reply

Associated Press Digs Its Own Grave Deeper; Wants To Create Its Own Fair Use Rules

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

On Friday, the story about the Associated Press threatening a blogger for using short snippets of AP stories with links back to the original as somehow being copyright infringement got a ton of attention. It was a clear case of the AP overstepping its bounds -- which goes against everything the organization claimed it would do. As more and more people complained, the AP figured it needed to do something to respond to the complaints -- though, it's choice of somethings proved rather ill-conceived.

First, it went around to the various blogs that had responded to the AP's actions and posted a cut-and-paste comment on all of them. It's rather amusing that their own response to people cutting and pasting their articles is to cut and paste the identical comment everywhere. Of course, in doing so, that comment didn't actually engage with any of the blogs, and in our case, at least, referenced other blog posts that we had not referenced or even read. In other words, the AP reacted as if these various blogs were all working together as a single organization. We're not. Even worse, this comment included what amounted to a sales pitch, suggesting that bloggers should "license" AP content.

Second, the AP announced that it would "rethink" its policies about blogging and try to set guidelines for what is and what is not fair use quoting of its articles. Unfortunately for the Associated Press, that is not how copyright law works. The holder of the copyright does not get to decide what is fair use. That, after all, is the whole point of fair use -- that it doesn't involve the copyright holder in the first place.

Third, the AP chose not to stop demanding that the Drudge Retort take down the various blog posts it had sent DMCA notices over. In other words, despite this "rethinking" it's still pursuing the same brain-dead, internet-unfriendly policy. Clearly, no one over at the Associated Press realizes how badly they screwed this one up.

So, again, we'll reiterate what we said on Friday: on any AP story we find that is worthy of a post, we'll now actively search for alternative sources to receive the link. We won't totally rule out linking to the AP, but since it seems so against getting traffic from other sites, it will now be a link of last resort. It makes you wonder if the news organizations who license AP content (the ones who are the actual beneficiaries of these links) are going to start telling the AP to knock it off.

Filed Under: associated press, bloggers, fair use
Companies: associated press

LendingTree Pressures Blogger To Remove Comments

from the section-230-anyone? dept

You may have heard the story earlier this week about how LendingTree had a security breach as employees were apparently handing out company passwords to mortgage firms, allowing them to access customer data directly. LendingTree is now suing the mortgage firms involved. However, LendingTree is apparently trying to crack down on some of the discussion about all of this. On one blog that wrote about the story, a commenter left a comment alleging that LendingTree doesn't actually "let banks compete" but has its own lending center -- which seems to be based on a class action lawsuit that was filed against LendingTree a couple years ago.

However, LendingTree is now putting pressure on bloggers to remove such comments, mentioning that they're defamatory. Of course, thanks to section 230 of the CDA, a blogger is not responsible for defamatory content left by others (they are still responsible for their own defamatory content, of course). While it doesn't appear that LendingTree's legal notes have entirely reached the level of a cease & desist (more like a legalistic nudge), it does sound like they've convinced some other bloggers to remove content that need not be removed. And, of course, by claiming that the content is defamatory, it may scare some bloggers who don't understand their section 230 safe harbors to feel obligated to remove the content.

Filed Under: bloggers, cda, defamation, free speech, section 230
Companies: lendingtree

Would You Believe People Trust Their Real Friends Over Bloggers?

from the oh-my! dept

In what may be one of the most pointless studies done in quite some time, a research firm has discovered to its own amazement that people tend to trust their own friends more than well known bloggers. Well, I should certainly hope so. Were there really people out there who thought that folks with high trafficked blogs actually held more sway than a personal friend? This is really nothing more than a retread of a (much more academic) report back in January noting that so-called "influentials" don't really have very much influence. What that study found was that "word of mouth" works, but where those recommendations come from tend to be somewhat random. So things bubble up from everywhere, rather than starting with well-known bloggers. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, but after a few years of ridiculous media coverage suggesting that top bloggers have influence, it's nice to see a few reminders that influence is a much more democratic system.

Filed Under: bloggers, common sense, friends, influence

I Wonder If The Blogger's Union Will Deem Me A 'Workhorse'

from the silly-ideas dept

Chris Mooney's proposal for unionizing bloggers is pretty silly to begin with. There are absolutely no barriers to entry for blogging, so if a writer feels he's not being fairly compensated, he always has the option to jump to a new blog, or to start one of his own. And because a lot of bloggers work out of their homes, some common union concerns, such as workplace safety, just don't apply. But the thing that really irritates me about Mooney's proposal is the idea that the bloggers' union will "set up a structure that separates the workhorse bloggers from the pure hobbyists." It seems to me that this totally misses the point of blogging. Bloggers blog first and foremost because they enjoy it and are passionate about the subjects they're writing about. Some of us are lucky enough to make some money in the process. Many of us are not. But nobody is entitled to be paid for blogging. And we certainly don't need an official bureaucracy in charge of deciding whose blogging is "professional" enough to merit compensation. There's no reason to think that union's process for determining who gets a paycheck would be any less arbitrary than the system we've got now, but it would be guaranteed to generate a lot of needless bitterness and resentment.

Filed Under: bloggers, unions

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed Against Blogger For Criticizing Company

from the slapp-this dept

We've seen so many cases recently of companies trying to shut down negative criticism online by suing critics, it's nice to point out a case where those cases get shot down by the courts. Eric Goldman has the details on how a court has thrown out the lawsuit filed by BidZirk, one of many, many companies that will sell your stuff on eBay for you, against a blogger for criticizing BidZirk's service in a blog post. The lawsuit claimed defamation, privacy invasion and trademark violations -- all of which seem like a stretch. If anything, this sounds like a SLAPP situation, where the company isn't suing because anything wrong was done, but because it just doesn't like criticism. In this case, the court found no defamation, as the blog post was clearly the guy's opinion. It found no trademark violation because the guy used the company's name in the course of reporting on the company, which is perfectly legal. As Goldman notes, the unfortunate part of this story is that a blogger had to spend a year and a half in court dealing with this lawsuit. While it's great that he eventually won, many bloggers wouldn't have the time, money or stamina to deal with such lawsuits -- which is why they're likely to keep happening.

Filed Under: bloggers, defamation, libel, slapp
Companies: bidzirk