This week’s episode of Media Watch shines a light on a real problem with a LOT of online reviews and reviewers. Updated: And the bad (but necessary) news keeps coming!
Alex’s upfront warning This article doesn’t have a review in it, but I do think there’s some important points to be made here. Also, you’re going to need to watch some video.
I’m updating this article because while it still speaks to some basic journalistic truths (or things that ideally would be true), it’s also one that’s expanded over time, with Media Watch revisiting the issue of tech journalism ethics in the most recent episode.
First up, the episode a couple of weeks back that spurred me into action:
And then last night’s episode, which more looked at the gaming/tech hardware space:
I’ll address the newer episode first, because I kind of figure the folks who read this when I first put it up probably (or hopefully!) did read the original article when I posted it. I’ll leave that mostly as it is below.
So, the issue that Media Watch highlights here is one of disclosure and sponsorship, something that it does appear that Press Start rather spectacularly failed to do.
I don’t think that it’s a surprise at all that I’m not in favour of that; if you’ve read any of my reviews at ART recently you’ll notice a disclaimer, freshly written each time that talks about ethical obligations and how they affect my writing for a damned reason, and one that I feel is incredibly important.
In order to trust a review, you have to trust the reviewer. If the reviewer is being paid by the brand, there’s a pretty clear conflict of interest there, and the review cannot be trusted. It’s just about that simple.
The problem, of course, is that you do need to keep the lights on somehow. For the record while I do not and still don’t know Stefan from AllOffRoadAu, I do know of Shannon Grixti; I’ve never worked for Press Start, but I’m pretty sure we’ve been at a few of the same events, and I’ve certainly been aware of his work.
With full honesty (and no access to their books at all) I have zero doubt that Press Start is making way more money than I am here at ART, and I can see how the allure of cold, hard cash is a hard one to walk away from.
Again with full honesty, I am pondering exactly what the future of ART looks like, because actual reader support is (sadly for me) much thinner on the ground than I’d like. I do think there are ways that you can do totally disclosed sponsorships in a way that serves both readers and brands, but it’s not shocking to me that the brands very much prefer the significantly more soft and marketing-friendly route.
What all of this boils down to is the question of the kind of media outlets you want.
It’s all well and good to rail at “the media” as though it’s one homogenous blob, but unless you do support the bits that aren’t whipped into creamy submission, that’s all you’ll be left with.
There are good and ethical and well-run and well written Australian tech sites out there. Give them your support, whether that’s financial, sharing articles, allowing ads — whatever you can do to help. The alternative is a bland media diet of pre-digested marketing messages and nothing else.
Herein ends the updated bit, but I’ll leave the original article below because it’s also still quite relevant if you’ve not read it before.
I do tend to watch the ABC’s Media Watch most weeks, because on the whole (not always, but mostly) I think it does some good work shining a light on some of the less savoury practices of the fourth estate here in Australia.
And this week… it went right at online reviews, with the first segment that I’ve linked above. If the YouTube gods are playing nice with me, it should automatically play at the right time; if not, it’s at about 5:35 into the episode.
One quick upfront admission: I don’t know Stefan from AllOffRoadAu in any way at all; his topic of choice — off-roading in 4WD vehicles — isn’t my cup of tea. Fine if you like that kind of thing, of course. But there’s no connection between the two of us, except for the one that’s the big problem with a LOT of online reviews and the way that they can be done in this day and age that the Media Watch segment highlights.
To cut to the chase here, this kind of paid essentially-advertorial placement happens a LOT, especially in the “influencer” space, much less so if one is identified as being in the broader (but these days, sadly, smaller) “media” space in technology reviewing. And it should go without saying that it’s not good at all, either for reviewers or for their audiences.
Have I had this kind of approach since I’ve been running ART?
Yes; moreso from the YouTube side of matters, and typically much more from representatives of companies located overseas; the local representatives of bigger brands tend to know that I’m rather old-school media in my thinking and approach and won’t respond kindly (if at all; most of them end up in the circular filing cabinet if you know what I mean) to this kind of “deal”.
Which is not to say (as the example above demonstrates) that it doesn’t happen, because it certainly does. I have to tread very carefully here because Australian defamation law is quite the thing, so I won’t be naming names, which I know will annoy some.
I suspect just linking that Media Watch episode and the company involved might well see me blacklisted from their review cycles for a while. If so, so be it; won’t be the first time that I’ve had a company ignore me, for sure. With disclosure in mind, one of the microphone sets I use is a DJI model, and I paid for that with my own money.
For audiences it’s a terrible deal each way; you can’t know whose reviews to trust, because maybe they’re paid or influenced straight up, and the outlets that won’t play that game (like, for example, ART) get passed over for review opportunities, so you never hear from them on specific products. If you’ve been hanging out for my reviews on certain devices of late, that’s likely part of the reason why…
For reviewers too — those of us who actually review products, not just regurgitate breathless marketing copy — it’s also a terrible foundation to build upon. Yes, I do very keenly get that something has to keep the lights on (more on this below), but it’s such a basic erosion of audience trust that you’re effectively undermining your own platform each and every time that you do this kind of deal. Maybe you figure that’s fine, it’ll “never come out”… right up until it does.
This is why for every review I do here, I put in the lengthy ethical disclaimer that I do at the top of reviews, because I want to be entirely transparent about the provenance of the things I review, whether they’ve been sent my way and aren’t going back, or are on a short term loan, or are software provided by a company… you get the idea.
If you’re doubting, take for example my recent 115″ Samsung TV hands-on, where I disclosed to the level of a cup of coffee, because it was purchased specifically for me. Did it fuel the review? In a way, but it didn’t change my opinions at all, and I still disclosed it.
Absolute transparency means that it’s clear how that works, but I maintain that I’ll say what the reality of a product is in my testing time no matter what the results may be. That’s the way I was trained many decades ago when I was first starting out as a journalist, and it’s the way I’ll stay for reviews written at ART.
For the record, I am not averse to sponsorship deals for ART, but my stand here is absolute. They’re very specifically phrased; much more on the advertising side and with a clear church/state dividing line between an advertisement that’s paid for and any and all content on the site. A reader/viewer should always know what they’re looking at and whether there’s a commercial consideration in play at all at all times.
You might have noticed that you’ve not seen that kind of ad here, because (shock! horror!) brands are always going to be more inclined to spend that money on an advertorial “review” that gushes about their products than they are an actually honest review. Still, it’s an avenue that I’m open to for the brands that would prefer an association with an ethical approach. They know how to contact me.
Side note: Yes, there are affiliate links on some reviews and at the bottom of pages, but those are either specific to the product or entirely programmatic, not selected or influenced. It would appear that a lot of folks block them outright in any case.
Still, my words are not for sale, but ideally, what I’d love ART to be is actually reader/viewer funded, because it gets past that issue entirely. If that kind of approach appeals to you, please consider becoming a financial supporter today. With my full honesty hat on, relatively few do, and it’s a huge part of why the updates here are sporadic; I quite literally can’t afford to put the time in and put food on my plate at the same time.
[kofi]
Realistically what would be best is a more robust and honest reviewer ecosystem, so I’m not just going to pitch for myself here; if you’d like to support independent ethical tech media in Australia, also consider supporting publications such as BTTR or Pickr for example. They’re both examples of publications being produced by truly excellent, award-winning journalists whose output I trust. Once again, with my ethical spectacles on, I will say that, unlike Stefan in the Media Watch episode, I do know the writers there and have done for some time. You should get to know them too, to help support a range of reviews and better information about products and services.
Or let things be, and gamble that the “review” you’re reading or watching isn’t just an advertorial in disguise. Your call, of course.
About the Author
