Comments on: Scoble says he’s biased — does it matter?

By: Zenrhe

Zenrhe — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:17:08 +0000

Sorry for joining the conversation so late, was jsut linked here in an article talking about Robert Scoble accepting advertising on his blog.
http://techleaders20.blogspot.com/2008/01/michael-arrington-talking-too-tough-at.html

I believe the PodTechs podcasts which had been sponsered should have been highlighted. I dont beleive its up to the reader to have to just know that, its not the kind of thing i would realise if i stumbled accross it somewhere. And i think that information is very valuable. It wouldnt stop me watchig it, but i would be able to take the information with a pinch of salt and still respect the people who put it together.

And when it comes to being biased, thats just always going to happen. I believe in the character of people who write such blogs, and you learn what angle they often are coming from. But indeed there may be circumastances when trust is broken, and the information from this place may no longer be referenced.

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 03:21:10 +0000

You got a point. Sometimes, even amidst the entire online media revolution, it seems like what we’re really doing is learning lessons that have been learned before.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:30:04 +0000

I would agree, Karl. And I would point out — not specifically to do with Scoble or anyone else, but just in general — that once it is lost, trust can be very difficult (in some cases impossible) to regain.

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:16:49 +0000

The bias discussion is a ‘change the subject’ effort away from the one that matters. The bias discussion doesn’t matter.

The trust discussion does.

IBM was very smart here agreed. So was Robert.

But if a viewer saw the PodTech video, would they know it was paid for?

Saying “Readers and viewers are pretty darn savvy at smelling spin.” is an argument that deflects responsibility away from the author of the work from needing to be transparent and puts *all* of the onus on the reader/viewer.

Robert himself says “PodTech WAS paid for doing a video, and other work, for Intel. We should have clearly marked that as sponsored content. It was not.”

He’s right. And arguments to the contrary are just… mind blowing.

By: Michael Markman

Michael Markman — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:33:45 +0000

Requiring reporters to be unbiased sets an impossible standard. IIt’s enought to ask them to be fair and open about their biases (which Scoble is). PR pros, politicians, and marketers will use every advantage they can get away with to place and enhance their stories. We’re in a caveat lector world. Journalists and bloggers earn their reputations by their work. Blogging, linking, and comments are reputation accelerants for good or ill. (Boy did Scoble get beat up this weekend.). Readers and viewers are pretty darn savvy at smelling spin. Scoble’s long video on Intel had the odor of tedium. PodTech’s short video had the odor of a sales pitch.

Did Intel overpay? Nope. Here’s why. Intel bought exclusive presence in both the Podtech pieces with no mention of work by I.B.M. and AMD to solve similar problems through different means. Most mainstream articles gave I.B.M. nearly co-billing on advancing chip technologies. PodTech got paid for doing stneography.