CNET Requires That Journalists Respond to Blog Comments

CNET is mandating that its blogging journalists respond to all reader comments and questions, according to a report in The Guardian. Further, they are also expected to get involved in every debate that "has legs." (Hat tip to Cyberjournalist)

This model is incredibly noble and indicative of where journalism needs to evolve. However, at the same time, it presents a conundrum for public relations professionals and the journalists as well.

For every three or four stories that the PR community "generates" there's often one that the client is not happy with the turnout. Sometimes it's a misquote. Other times it's a negative tone. Now not all of these gripes are rational of course. However, often they are.

When the offending story and/or error rises to a certain level of concern, the natural next step is to contact the reporter or even his/her editor. This happens hundreds of times a day in newsrooms across the country. The editorial team then makes a decision to amend a story and/or print a correction if it's a print publication - or not. This all takes place in the backchannel, not out on the ice.

Now the game has changed, at least on CNET's web site. If there's an error in a blog a PR professional can post comments and questions. That's not new. However, what is new is that the reporters must respond. Also, why stop at blog posts? CNET allows readers to comment on news stories too. They should go all the way here.

Unfortunately, I also worry that this will be used unethically. It's possible that less than scrupulous PR people will solicit "friendlies" to post questions and concerns in an effort to stir up a debate. This is basically astroturfing.

Again, it's great that CNET will respond to its readers. However, they would be advised to make this process more transparent so we know what they will and won't respond to. Further, some clarity on how PR professionals and corporations should interact with journalists in comments would be helpful too.

Tags: CNET

Comments

[Rob Hyndman]

"Incredibly noble"?

Maybe. Or maybe they recognize that responses generate more page views and ad revenue.

[Ian Delaney]

Poor sods. No private blogger is compelled to respond to idiots. And I'm not sure responding to idiots will improve the quality at all.

[Rachel Gross]

This is truly a double edged sword, a journalist should respond if the comment warrants it. If there is an error in the blog it should be recognized. However, if a PR person wants to get someone to make some stupid controversial comment there could be a lot of "mud slinging" and wasted effort on the part of the journalist trying to answer some lame accusation. However, I kind of like the idea that they have to defend their arguments or facts to their audience.

[Mike Barrett]

I think it's all about the fact that there now has to be a dialogue rather than a monologue. From the traditional journalists perspective this is a big shift in culture and it's good to see CNET (actually ZDNet.co.uk in this case) making that connection.

There will always be potential for abuse but there also has to be a degree of common sense involved. This is about cultural change, not about mandating processes for journalists to blindly follow.

[aspir8or]

I pity the journo who writes a truly contentious article, then has to spend so much time defending and/or moderating the resulting war, there's no time left to research and write their next column. Compulsory replies could put you right off the whole business.

[Marky]

If there is an error in the blog it should be recognized, effort on the part of the journalist trying to answer some lame accusation, From the traditional journalists perspective this is a big shift in culture.