Friday, April 01, 2005

Internet ranks 2nd-to-last as trustworthy source among 18-34 set Dan Gillmor picked up on an important report for the Carnegie Foundation. Entitled "Abandoning the News." For any mainstream media (MSM) outlet that's doing some soul searching (which they should be doing) and that's looking for some survey data on the perception of their medium (newspaper, TV) versus the Internet, this report is backed by a revealing PowerPoint presentation that gets into the heads of 18 to 34 year-olds (obviously, a very important group).  Why the established media should care: In no small way, it articulates the the challenges that the MSM will face as a result of democratized news provision. Relevance to transparency: First and most important, trustworthiness is listed as one of the top three criteria in selecting information sources (it appears at the top of the list but it's not clear whether list order is an indicator of importance). Timeliness is listed second. While the Internet gets high marks for timeliness, it's perceived to be the second worst in terms of trustworthiness. So, given that transparency is about credibility and trustworthiness... well, now you understand the relevance. 9:34:38 AM    comment []

Thursday, March 31, 2005

David: It's been a while since your last transparency post. What's up? Yes, it has been a while and apologies. Time is such a gating factor to running this channel. As you can see, I'm still doing some stuff behind the scenes. For example, I'm adjusting the design of the site and have some work to do there. I'm also prototyping a software connection between my e-mail system and this transparency channel to more efficiently move content into the channel (since so much of the relevant content comes to me via e-mail). This is taking longer than I had hoped. But once I'm done, I'm hoping the result will be like prying loose a cap off a fire hyrdrant. The flow should pick up significantly. On this vector, the important finding of my experiment is that it's not as easy to be a transparent journalist as you'd think. If you're on the hook to crank out content on a daily basis (as I am in the two blogs that I write for on ZDNet), there's not a lot of time left over to be transparent. This is particularly so when the heavy lifting to be transparent on a particular story is about 10x the work of the story itself. All this said, I have some cool postings in the works that get to the heart of some really interesting blogging/journalism matters and also, I have several things cooking on the research transparency front. My musings about research transparency have apparently struck a nerve and my inbox is full of comments and thoughts that I must parse through.  Stay tuned. 9:58:16 AM    comment []

Monday, March 14, 2005

PR Week covers this transparency channel PR Week interviewed me a few weeks ago.  An edited-to-fit-in-print version of the interview can be found in PR Week's print edition or you can go to the full version on-line. 8:28:28 PM    comment []

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Lark is singing, but it isn't praises for tech research Andy Lark calls tech research  A House Of Cards.  In his post, he says: I don't know of any industry other than tech in which such "corrupting" business practices exist....What isn't OK is the business practice of pay-for-play masquerading as independent consultancy. The only equity in it is that this model punishes big and small alike. The big have to keep fueling the beast and where they don't they suddenly see their rankings plummet and adverse commentary. The small can't afford to really play at all. He doesn't stop there. Next, he proposes a Research Transparency Portal and suggests that to get the research outfits to go along with the idea, vendors should put away their checkbooks and organize a boycott until the researchers capitulate.   Go Andy. Go.  You have my support. 12:26:19 AM    comment []

Monday, March 07, 2005

Email from Elizabeth Albrycht regarding research transparency I think we have to distinguish here too between the analyst him/herself and the organization they work for.  I can't tell you how many times I have been on the phone with analyst/executive and the analyst rather sheepishly says - "Oh, I really need to give you the sales pitch now." Or something along those lines, intimating they are forced to it by "management." I question whether  research associates are the best people to give sales pitches.  Those two skills don't always go together! Many times, for clients, our meetings with analysts are two-fold.  To get on their radar screen, and to evaluate whether we want to pay them for future engagements.  The sales discussion has always been some part of the negotiation.  But, over the past years, the balance of power has shifted to the sales side.   I agree that analysts should not be seen as objective or independent, when you have to pay to play. Aside:  I work with Gene Signorini of Yankee Group, and now Nick McQuire, through the Mobile Enterprise Alliance and I have been impressed by both of their smarts.  This has been mainly true over time of Yankee analysts as a whole.  My original rant referenced above comes from Oct. 2003.  Maybe their scheduling system has changed since then; I haven't used it in awhile.  Gene and Nick are members of the MEA's advisory board and I don't need to go though the scheduling system to talk to them. 11:10:26 AM    comment []

Research outfits outted? If you've been following this transparency channel, then you may have seen how I just took the IT research community task over its lack of transparency. For obvious reasons, I wrote this from a reporter's perspective. I just got done reading Elizabeth Albrycht's perspective from the public relations side of the equation and all I can say is "Someone get me the Pepto please." Give it a read and you'll see why it just makes you ill. The most disturbing quote from her posting -- one that may corroborate the tainted process that I read about in the InternetAcceleration newsletter -- talks about how analyst briefing requests are held hostage for a ransom of a sales pitch. Albrycht has no qualms about identifying who engages in what practices: Then there is Yankee. You now have to talk to a sales person before you are allowed to request a briefing. You have to listen to their pitch before you get to climb Olympus and talk to the ever-quoted Zeus. The implication from Albyrcht's account is that if you're a vendor that's not a customer of a research company, then to get on an analyst's radar (an analyst that the rest of the world trusts to have objectively surveyed the entire landscape by the way) requires a sales pitch first. Imagine if this was standard practice in the press too? Holy cow! Media company's would be making money hand over fist. Thankfully, it's not. At least not where I've worked. All vendors have an equal shot at me. I'm not saying that I'll write about every one, or even take every briefing that's tossed my way. That's physically impossible. But if my sole purpose of being was to offer exhaustive research on some vertical category in order to empower buyers to make informed decisions, then I'd want to hear from every single player in that category on a regular basis and I woudn't want my sales department standing in the way of those briefings. But instead, we have eyewitness accounts from outfits like the InternetAcceration newsletter that are disturbing at best when it comes to the implications to a research reports objectivity and thoroughness: We asked a few of the vendors listed in the [Magic Quadrant] how much effort Gartner put into its evaluation (did Gartner contact them, interview reference accounts, talk to investors, business partners, review "bake off" findings...) and we were basically told that, from these vendors' perspective, Gartner had done very little. Here's a shocking example of what one vendor told us: - "we spent about a half hour with ... [Gartner Research Vice President Name Deleted] ...of Gartner almost exactly one year ago. We gave him a brief overview of our company and exchanged pleasantries. As I recall the subject of a 'paid relationship with Gartner' was raised more than once." Now, before we go casting the whole lot as a bunch of crooks on the take, I'd like to point out a few things. First, research companies, like all other companies, can't exist without revenues. And given that their research is useful to the buyers of IT as well as the vendors who are featured in it (eg: for competitive analysis), it makes perfect sense for research outfits to pitch both communities on research provision. But, like the press, the #1 asset that a research outfit has is it's credibility. If it loses that, it loses everything. So, in the name of credibilty, great care must be taken not to poison the well. As a researcher, I'd want to spend a few hours per quarter (or more) with each of the companies in my beat and, in the name of revenue, I think it would even be fair to let them know that my research results are available to all parties on the same terms and who the contacts are if they're interested. But I would also engage in complete disclosure. First, I'd have a publicly available disclosure that describes how I go about guaranteeing objectivity and comprehensiveness. In it, I'd mention what my company's business model is and how I occasionally discuss the availability of my research with all potential consumers but that it's more of an awareness thing than a hard sell and that it in no way impacts the outcome of my reports. Then, in my reports and any summaries of them that get republished by other entities (charts for example), I would be very clear about who in the report is a paying client of the company, and who is not. Playing a role in sales, making money, and having a financial relationship with the companies or people that a researcher researches isn't the mistake. The mistake is in not disclosing everything there is to disclose about how the process works and where credibility could be called into question should the nature of certain relationships that aren't otherwise disclosed become public information. With the blogosphere, it's only a matter of time before more of these relationships and processes are outted and certain research outfits are put on the defense (never a good position to be in). Better to go on offense so that by the time a question comes up, the world has pretty much already established a comfort level with how things work. The bonus is that, just like with journalists, when researchers know that full transparency is in effect, they have no choice but to work extra hard to be objective and avoid any misperception of bias. The resulting research can only enhance a research outfit's credibility and revenue prospects. Update: A person claiming to be David Scott Lewis has responded to my original post on researcher transparency with his own first hand accounts and uses the disturbing verb "Aberdeened." I've never met Mr. Lewis, can't guarantee that it was him that made this post (if you are him and want to "authenticate," please e-mail me), and I cannot vouch for the authenticity of his comments. But, if for no other reason than the fact that his storytelling shares some commonalities with other accounts of shameful behavior, it's worth a read. 8:10:06 AM    comment []

Friday, March 04, 2005

Is it time for IT researchers to start practicing full transparency? So, I think we're in agreement that the media needs some transparency. And based on what I see being written elsewhere, some PR transparency appears to be on order as well. So, what about research? In our industry -- the tech industry -- if there's a part the business that desperately needs more transparency, it's the research part. I was reminded of this today when I was forwarded an e-mail newsletter known as the InternetAcceleration Newsletter from InternetAcceleration.com. In the February 22, 2005 issue is a segment called There they go again. In saying "We think that the current quality of output in its Magic Quadrants are both potentially misleading to IT buyers and an abuse of its brand," the report has some harsh words for tech research outfit Gartner who owns the Magic Quandrant brand. In fact, so harsh is the newsletter in levying accusations of impropriety (could this end up being a transparency test), that I can't help but wonder how Gartner cannot react. If Gartner sues for libel, then we get to watch Gartner's image go on trial. If Gartner does nothing, what are we to think then? The report goes on to say: "Here's a shocking example of what one vendor told us: - "we spent about a half hour with ... [Gartner Research Vice President Name Deleted] ...of Gartner almost exactly one year ago. We gave him a brief overview of our company and exchanged pleasantries. As I recall the subject of a "paid relationship with Gartner" was raised more than once." That wasn't the only response like that. This situation turns out to be worse than we thought. It appears to us that not only is Gartner clearly doing insufficient research (hadn't even spoken to a vendor listed in the MQ for a year!), but that Gartner Vice Presidents are using vendor briefings as thinly disguised sales calls. It's pretty intimidating for a vendor to be asked to sign up for research services IN THE SAME discussion as they're providing input used in a MQ ranking and some may say unethical." Whether or not these stories about Gartner have any merit remains to be seen (or perhaps we'll never know). But there are many research outfits in the tech business and in my discussions with certain marcomm pros that I've know for years and trust, there is no question in my mind that these sorts of shennanigans are taking place behind the scenes. While I'm not going to call anybody out for a bar room brawl, the newsletter reminded me that research transparency is definitely a discussion that needs to be had. For example, when presenting scoreboard like research like Gartner's Magic Quandrants, shouldn't the charts say which of the companies listed in the chart are also Gartner clients? Or how about when the press gets pitched on "new, earthshattering" results as a proofpoint of some vendor's leadership? Case in point. Recently via e-mail, I received a copy of a press release from Check Point Software Technologies that says: Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ: CHKP), the worldwide leader in securing the Internet, today announced that recent independent tests conducted by The Tolly Group confirm that Check Point provides the broadest breadth of coverage and the lowest Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for today’s complex security vulnerabilities in comparison to Cisco Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CSCO) and Juniper Networks (NASDAQ: JNPR). First, if you're a public relations professional, please listen to what I'm about to say: I don't know about other journalists and I know you're just trying to be helpful, but when you pitch me on customer success stories and research-based proof-points, my spider senses start tingling. Call me fickle, but the last people I'm going to trust to provide me with objective information about your products or services are the people you're recommending to me. Think about it. What are the odds that you're going to furnish me with a contact that has something really bad (read: objective) to say about the product your pitching. Would I really doing my readers a favor by relying on these sources as authorities? Second, this was one of the first research-touting e-mails that I've received since starting this transparency channel and as I read it, I realized that, in the name of transparency, it's time to start asking questions. And I did. In this case I asked the following question "Was the study by the Tolly Group commissioned by Checkpoint?" Answer? "Yes, the Tolly Group study was commissioned by Check Point." I'm glad the public relations professional was honest. That was a good move. But, for the research community, this puts the transparency issue at front and center. Although I'm an ex-testing lab director, I can't for a minute make a qualitative assessment about the Tolly Group's research methodologies. I haven't seen them. But I can say its time to insist on several layers of transparency. First, any pitches by vendors or public relations personnel to the press, analysts, or customers that cite research must absolutely disclose any relationship that those entities have with the provider(s) of the research being cited. Second, there needs to be a review and consensus of what language can be used in these pitches. In the aforementioned pull-quote from the press release, the Tolly Group's tests are characterized as "independent." Now, perhaps everyone who signed off on the press release including the folks at the Tolly Group have their own definition of independent and they're certainly entitled to believe that. But, in my book, when the cited research is commissioned by the vendor that's pitching me, it doesn't pass my test for indepedence. It doesn't even come close. Third, as I said earlier, all published research should be accompanied by disclosure of the client relationships that are relevant to that research. If such relationships exist, then I think that calls for an additional layer of transparency -- one that discloses whether the vendor was exposed in anyway to the research methodologies prior to the start of the testing or research. If so, then the nature of that exposure must be detailed. Was the vendor allowed to provide consultative input? Was the vendor given any veto power over certain evaluation criteria? If a comparison was involved, did the vendor have any influence over the competitive set? I'm sure there are other questions to ask -- questions that make it possible for consumers of any research to make their own judgements about the results being shown to them (very often to help turn a prospect into a customer). I think you get the drift. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find any of these practices in use and there's a reason for that. It's one of this industry's ugly, dirty little secrets and it's time for a change. Update: Be sure to read the comments on this blog entry as well my interactions with Elizabeth Albrycht.   How many more "cathardic" postings from insiders (former or present) will it take before the issue snowballs into something bigger? Finally, I know it has been a while since I last posted, but it has not been a while since I've been working on this transparency channel. As you can see by my expandable blog roll on the right side, I've been experimenting with OPML. I've also been spending a lot of time under the hood of Radio Userland, trying to figure out the best ways to connect my e-mail system to it in a way that turns Radio into a transparency content management system, something that would serve as the underpinnings of my evolving JOTS specification. 10:55:27 PM    comment []

Thursday, February 17, 2005

The Media Guerilla's recurring nightmare I've been at LinuxWorld this week hammering out podcasts one after another. By the time I'm done with the show, I think I will have published a total of ten podcasts. For transparency's sake, not ALL of them were done at the show. To get my coverage off to a headstart, three of them were pre-recorded. One of those pre-recorded interviews was with Emic Networks vice president of product management and marketing Donna Jeker. Although it doesn't happen often, this was the second time in a week where my interviewee didn't have the answers to some obvious questions. I don't want to turn this transparency channel into a bitching and moaning session about poorly executed PR. While this again is an example of how a the practice of media transparency can be embarrassing to interviewees, the companies they work for, and their public relations representatives, there's an upside. Transparency should make all three of those parties much better at what they do because they know that there's more on the line than just the story itself. And why shouldn't that be the case. Everytime a journalist writes a story, their ass is totally on the line. Why shouldn't the demand for that excellence be pervasive throughout the entire food chain of a story. If this was the case, then the final outcomes (the stories) would consistently be better throughout all of journalism. So, transparency raises the bar for everyone, as well it should which is why I think examples like this are worthy of discussion. Again, the purpose of this channel isn't Public Relations 101. But if this it what it takes to raise the bar and make journalism better, then, then it needs to be done. As I said in my tranparency notes on the first case, I believe the responsibility for such gaffs are shared by both the interviewee and his or her press relations counsel. But not equally. Unfortuantely, Ms. Jeker was not prepared for some of my technical questions nor did she have specific pricing information regarding the product her company was announcing (the reason Emic originally pitched me on the story, and I took the bait). I'm not even sure what to say about not having pricing information. That mistake speaks for itself. But regarding the technical question problem, I believe from my observations of PR people in action is that one of their jobs is to prepare the interview for the type of questions they're going to get from a journalist and figuring that out isn't hard to do. Except for brand new reporters just coming onto the scene, it's not all that difficult to research a journalist's body of work to get an idea (in the case of tech journalism) of how technical the questions might get. So, the following clips are from the raw unedited audio of the interview. It's perhaps another example of Mike Manuel's recurring nightmare (time codes indicated where exactly in the MP3 file you can listen to that part of the conversation. The announcement was about a product for people who run open source-based J2EE application servers. [8:10 Me] When you say restarted, do the transactions restart themselves, or does the user have to physically recognize that the transaction needs to be restarted an take action. [8:25 Answer] That may depend on the exact scenario and maybe for the purposes of this conversation those details might be too fine grained. Is that a fair answer? [9:33 Me] We're describing the type of failure that happens for example when you're on a Web site and you've started an ecommerce transaction. What about with J2ee -- what your announcing today -- with J2ee, a lot of the transactions and workflow take place behind the scenes. When there's a failure there. How does the system respond. How does it get back to the point that a transaction must be restarted? How does it take the same action that let's say an end user might have to take if they're sitting in front of their browser and they realize they have to restart? [10:12 Answer] That question is actually not something I can answer right at this moment. Not because I don't want to but because I'm not a J2EE expert. If you're users would like that answer, I can get that for you and it can be posted at a later date. [16:59 Me:] [just after gettin a rundown on the pricing of previously announced (existing products) I ask about the one being announced] And for J2EE? [17:03 Answer] Basically we have some bundled pricing -- one for the LAMP cluster and one for the LAMJ cluster [DB's note, the latter is the one with J2EE as signified by the "J"] and that pricing I don't have memorized but its a combination of the products and an effective discount applied. [17:39 Answer] [DB's note: at this point in the interview, the interviewee makes a mistake that all potential interviewees and PR people should learn from: comparing apples and oranges in a way that paints the solution in a better light than a competing alternative.] We're providing Oracle RAC like capability at MySQL prices. [18:19 Me] [DB's note: At this point in the interviw, my thinking was, OK, if you want to go there, we can go there and I do.] With [Oracle's] 9iRAC or 10g, my understanding is that they use a shared everything approach ....is your solution the same sort of thing? My understanding is that the engineering that goes into that sort of approach is extraordinary and its sort of unusual to find that. [18:59 Answer] I probably don't want to get into the pros and cons of the different approaches... The dialog speaks for itself. If you're not prepared to back up a claim, then making the claim in the first place probably isn't a good idea. Any decent journalist will grab hold and the outcome will not be good. In this case, here is the resulting coverage from my story: "At the end of the interview, Jeker initiated a comparison of Emic's technology to that of Oracle's and made it seem as though you get the benefits of Oracle's clustering solutions for a fraction of the cost. Ultimately, yes, both solutions deliver a degree of fault tolerance, scalability, and manageability. But the approaches to providing those services and the degree to which the solutions can power massive, mission-critical applications are so different that I can't help but wonder if that's like saying that a Kia offers equal protection to that of a Hummer because both have airbags. While Emic's solutions may very well be worth the investment for what you get (as are many low-to-midrange clustering solutions), just remember you get what you pay for. I'm not sure making the comparison to Oracle is a good idea." Almost finally:  Sometimes, the interviewees get straight A's.  If you're looking for an example of this, check out my audio interview with AMD's vice president of commercial servers and workstations Ben Williams.  This is a shining example of how well-prepared an interviewee can and should be for an interview.   What was the role of William's PR counsel in getting him to that state of preparedness?  I have no idea.   Nor should I, right? Finally, I'm going to make this my last post on the effects of media transaparency from the PR/interviewee angle. This is an experiment for now and I think two real-world observations are enough to conclude that the impact of media transparancy goes well beyond the issue of media credibility. This was a surprise result of the ongoing experiment, but a result nonetheless and when Jay Rosen said I should write about how the experiment is going as it's taking place, it was precisely these sorts of unforseen results that he knew I'd encounter and that need to be noted. 11:23:43 AM    comment []

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Living the Media Guerilla's Transparency Nightmare In a previous entry, I point to Mike Manuel's Media Guerilla blog where he describes how transparent journalism can reveal some awkward moments. Although my example doesn't involve that moment that many journalists have experienced -- the one where they ask a question and the PR person pipes in like an attorney exclaiming "objection!" -- it involves an equaly awkward moment that gets caught on tape.  One  where the interviewees have no idea what the answer is an obvious question is. I mean, like REALLY obvious. Who's to blame for such an embarrassing moment? Of course, the interviewees should be well-versed in their subject matter before meeting with the press. But the PR folks are the safety net. Their job is to anticipate questions -- especially the obvious ones -- and make sure that their clients are good and ready before taking that interview. Understandably, you can't be prepared for every question. But let's say the client is an organization looking to get press and the main message is that the organization is focused on five critical issues. Shouldn't the client be prepared to discuss each of them in detail? In this "case study" of how transparency can reveal some awkward moments, I'm meeting with Oracle's Tony DiCenzo and Sun's Peter ffoulkes to get introduced to the Enterprise Grid Alliance -- an organization that they were representing at a recent grid event in Boston. I didn't ask for this meeting. I was pitched on it and accepted, given that my primary beat is enterprise computing. During the meeting, which I recorded, ffoulkes and DiCenzo explained to me that the EGA is focused on five primary objectives and even has working groups assigned to each one. The five working groups (and initiatives) are even listed on the organization's Web site. As explained to me, they are: Terminology (Reference Model) Accounting Grid Security Component Provisioning Data Provisioning After being told of the objectives, one by one, I asked for an explanation of each. After all, if I'm going to explain what the EGA does to ZDNet's audience of enterprise technologists, they deserve to have each of its major initiatives explained. Only, there was one problem. When I asked what "data provisioning" was, neither interviewee had the answer. Neither did either of the two PR counselors who were accompanying them. For me, it was as strange moment. It seemed like an obvious question. Perhaps for them, it wasn't. I was told they'd get back to me. Unfortunately, given how frequently I write, I have to get the stories out while they're fresh in my mind. There's really no time to get back to me. And so, the story goes out with text like this: Unfortunately, when it came time to discuss what data provisioning was, neither ffoulkes nor DiCenzo could answer. Want to be a fly on the wall for the awkward moment? You can download the MP3. 9:55:10 PM    comment []

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Should coverage be held hostage in exchange for transparency? In a recent e-mail discussion with Dan Bricklin regarding how the automatic publishing of e-mails from PR folks was making people nervous, and how, in the name of getting my job done, the need for ultimate transparency will have to be balanced against a source's right to privacy, Bricklin compared the situation to what happens when a video camera with a blinking red light is unexpectedly thrust into the face of a source. He makes a great point about offering veto power before publishing, but how that runs the risk of not getting the coverage altogether. Here's what he said: From: Dan Bricklin Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 3:53 PM To: David Berlind Subject: Re: media transparency channel, further developed David, Good stuff! In video there is the red light when the camera is rolling which kind of reminds you. But, that sometimes makes people clam up, like when you hold a mike in their face. Perhaps the "asking after the fact" thing is better. Show them what you'll make available and give them veto, but if they do, then they veto the story and some parts are explicitly not vetoable (the stuff when the "red light is on"). Things in a public podcast, for example, are available for transparency and timecodes into it are always OK like links to a website (or screen captures of something that was on a website). The email editing is tough because of the time, but providing it is making reporting consist of producing more material which is good for readers. As publishers need less to do (with distribution not needing all the printing and shipping logistics) there can be more expense on reporting. :) DanB 8:34:24 AM    comment []

Monday, February 07, 2005

Source comes up with own semantics for public bloggability of e-mail Here is an interesting development in my e-mail. Apparently aware that anything sent to me via e-mail might be fair game for publication in my blog, a source who shall so far remain nameless sent me an e-mail with the following text at the bottom: this email is: [ ] blogable [ x ] ask first [ ] private How interesting is that? In terms of specs for JOTS, this clearly points to the need to establish some sort of preferences that can be applied to e-mails on both a global basis (for all e-mails from a source) and on a per-transmission basis (that overrides the global preference). 5:37:48 PM    comment []

"Spokesperson" is SOP for Microsoft's PR Counsel In my experience, it has been standard operating procedure for any checked facts on stories regarding Microsoft to be anonymously attributed to "spokesperson" when the person fielding the inquiry works for one of Microsoft's public relations firms such as Waggener-Edstrom or Fleischman-Hillard.  When a Microsoft employee fields such an inquiry, the answer has always been attributable to that person.  As you can see in a recent blog entry of mine, such attribution is made.  I'm fairly certain this is a Microsoft imposed policy.  This raises some issues for the JOTS specification.  There should be a way that such policies can be set as preferences in a way that automatically includes a short document like this as the part of a  full disclosure or transparency statement for any given story.  5:00:18 PM    comment []

Friday, February 04, 2005

First email-to-editorial-to-email transparency test completed As with my first test, I've completed another test where the editorial points to the raw material. In the first case, the editorial provided time codes that could be used to advance to certain quotes in an audio file. In this case, the raw material is an e-mail instead of an MP3 file and the editorial mentions that the full text of the e-mail is available here, in the transparency channel. In response to concerns from the PR community regarding the automatic publication of their e-mails into my transparency channel, I adjusted my methodology and checked with the source (Kelly Larabee of Skype) to make sure she was OK with it. You can see in the thread where I asked: Would you mind, if for transparency's sake, I published this contents of this thread between you and me on my transparency channel?.....Your email address will be removed as will any phone numbers (including my conference line numbers). and she responded: That would be great, no problem at all ~ So, in summary, I felt pretty good about the way this worked out. By asking Larabee if she was OK with it and assuring her that her contact information would be redacted (a laborious task, by the way), her expectations were not only properly set, she was agreeable to the idea. 6:33:44 PM    comment []

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Designing a Journalist's Online Transparency System (JOTS) In an attempt to evolve a system spec for designing a system that helps journalists maintain transparency without so much burden that it intereferes with their jobs, I'm starting the JOTS specification.  JOTS stands for Journalist's Online Transparency System and, based on my experiences in trying to manually build my own transparency channel, I will be proposing JOTS features whose main objective is to achieve maximum transparency with the least amount of effort.  I've established a separate category called JOTS Specification for those of you who just want to browse the various spec items, and offer ideas. 9:11:48 PM    comment []

Spec Entry: Using pre-established source preferences to automate raw material handling Objective: Establish a database of sources and their transparency preferences as a pre-processor for raw materials coming from that source Abstract: The system should include a database of contacts and a tickler that helps the journalist to understand whether or not a source has been notified of the journalist's transparency policy and how that source has responded. For example, the source may provide blanket approval to publish all notes or may say "Ask First." A more advanced feature could include a way to provide redactable text strings. For example, a boolean (true/false) field that goes with a source's e-mail address to that indicates whether the source is ok with having their e-mail address published or not. Let's say the answer is no. The "Redact Email Address" field would be set to true, and the next time I forward an e-mail into the system from that sender, the system automatically redacts all occurences of the e-mail address from the text (but still gives me the opportunity to review it). 9:07:01 PM    comment []

Spec Entry: Transferring e-mail into JOTS Objective: With e-mail being one of the ways a lot of raw data is captured, there needs to be a fast and easy way to move raw material from an e-mail inbox into JOTS (Journalist's Online Transparency Systems) without the journalist having to do too much to make sure the raw material gets handled properly. Abstract: I've had to cut and paste e-mails in a way that formatting is very screwy and I have to and fix it.  Also, redacting senstivie data is cumbersome and could use automation.   When I receive an email, I should be able to forward it to a system and tag it with, at the very least, the sender's name and a title for the editorial project that the story is associated with.  The system should respond via e-mail with a URL for editing the entry which I can click on an review before publishing into the transparency channel.  The system could for example provide me with a way to look for specific text to redact and then do a search and replace on that that text (instead of me having to do it by hand) 9:04:44 PM    comment []

Mixed reactions from the PR community on pure transparency Now that I' ve published a few e-mail threads in the raw between me and various public relations officers for the companies I'm covering, some valuable feedback to the experiment is beginning to arrive that has me rethinking the idea of automatic transparency (in other words, for the sake of great transaprency, post threads now, ask questions later). In his blog, Andy Lark, who recently vacated his post as vice president of global communications and marketing for Sun Microsystems appears to approve of the idea and carries it forward as an example of the sort of transparency that public relations professionals should practice. Can you imagine the potential of that -- a transparency thread that connects the transparency of journalists to the transparency of the public relations community? But, in his Media Guerilla blog, Voce Communications' Mike Manuel has a slightly different take saying: But then it got me thinking, this practice (if it catches on) has some interesting implications for PR folk --- particularly the command and control types. Case in point, every PR practitioner I know of has (at one point or another) had to intercede on a line of questioning in an interview. Perhaps the journalist is looking for dirt or prying for information that shouldn't be shared or is just leading the interview down a weird path. How odd would it be to have that interruption recorded and then later distributed with the story? Can you say A W K W A R D? Manuel wasn't alone in expressing some reservations about the idea of full-blown transparency. Via e-mail, I was notified by one of my sources of how the grapevine within the hi-tech PR community was buzzing with rumors -- all true of course -- that I was publishing the full text of some my e-mail correspondences with public relations personnel, including their original pitch to me. For example, my exchanges with the folks at Good Technology and RIM for a blog entry I was writing and then my correspondences with representatives for VMWare and IBM regarding some potential coverage of those companies. An e-mail from that source (whose asked not to be identified) does a much better job than I can in describing the thoughts that might go through the minds of a PR professionals when dealing with journalists who are practicing automatic transparency. Of even more interest was the fact that the source subequently sent me a pitch regarding a controversial issue and when I said I did not agree, the source's first response was "Please tell me you're not going to publish this on that transparency channel thing." Many journalists might be reading this and saying screw the PR people. Everything they send you is on the record unless otherwise noted and is fair game. And, if you know me and my no holds barred style, you probably could see me doing just that (screwing the PR people). But brushing off the PR community in the name of transparency would not be a very strategic move for any journalist -- especially those who understand how the blogosphere is increasing the competition for eyeball-minutes (sort of like man-hours). Looking back over my career as a journalist, some of the work that I consider to be my best stuff could not have been accomplished without the assistance of my contacts in the public relations community. These contacts are often the decision makers who can make or break a journalist's access to key executives and interviewees. In a landscape where there's intensified competition among a growing supply of content providers for eyeball-minutes, the highest quality content with the best access to sources will rise to the top and get the most attention. The PR community and the relationships that a journalist cultivates with its members are some of the most important assets that a journalist has at their disposal -- assets that not every content provider has. In other words, they're assets that someone who makes there living being a journalist like me must think twice about before taking those relationships for granted and risking alienation. Now, I'm not for one minute suggesting that a journalist shouldn't keep themselves as a respectful arms distance from the people they cover. This isn't about getting cozy and forgetting transparency. It's about journalists figuring out how to best deliver transparency without being disrespectful to the people that give them their competitive advantage (as journalists). The aforementioned e-mail with my source turned into a thread out of which grew some very concrete facts, ideas, and recommendations. I am taking these on as action items and am looking for feedback from all corners. 1. Publish an explanation of why I'm practicing transparency. 2. Publish a transparency policy that explains how it works. That policy should include but not be limited to the following explanation of my practices (feel free to comment) Emails like the ones I published will not be automatically published without the permission of the sender and without giving the sender a chance to review the policy. In the interests of transparency (and protecting the policies of certain PR outfits), I should be flexible in my requirements as to what must be published. For example, some PR agencies would prefer that certain information like the names and specific contact information for their staffers be redacted. I honor all Off the record statements and Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) but a clear indication should be made in any correspondence when statements being made are not to be repeated, off-the-record or not for attribution, or being conveyed under the auspices of an NDA. Dispute resolution: Supply my contact information in the event that information published in the transparency channel is innaccurate (bad cut n paste, wrongly attributed, etc.) and is need of correction. Initial inquiries made by me (as opposed to pitches made by public relations) are fair game for publication as I am the author. The policies listed above apply to the replies. 3. A reminder in all correspondences that transparency is in "effect" and where -- online -- to get the details. This is obviously just a start but, per Jay Rosen's suggestion, I wanted to get my thoughts down when I had the chance. I worry that I already may have forgotten some of my ideas. Already, my exchanges with various PR folks has molded my behavior. In preparing my coverage for a new version of Skype, I've been exchanging e-mails with Skype's public relations officer Kelly Larabee that discuss a bug that I encountered. After several e-mails flew back and forth and she acknowledged the bug, I asked if I could publish the entire e-mail thread (with contact info redeacted) and she wrote back "that would be great, no problem at all." So, here already was a case where a thread contained some sensitive information and instead of disrespectfully just publishing the thread, I checked with the source. By doing so, I sent Larabee a message that not only indicates respect for her and her job, but that set her expectations instead of blindly suprising her. My expectation now is that she will continue to be open and honest with me knowing that when she is, she's not running the risk of having everything she says become public. One final aspect of this is what I call the "the system spec." In an e-mail to me, Andy Lark wrote "for transparency to emerge -- we need a new system -- and that system first needs a spec and a playbook." I couldn't agree more. As you can see, from the journalist's side of the equation, I'm attempting to develop the playbook and am looking for feedback. This needs to be a collaborative process. But a playbook alone won't do the trick. For transparency to work, a journalist cannot be expect to go through the hoops that I have so far gone through in order to offer the minimal degree of transparency that I have so far offered. Here are some examples of the heavy lifting that I've had to do in order to offer some very basic instances of transparency: I've had to cut and paste e-mails in a way that formatting is very screwy and I have to and fix it. Also, redacting senstivie data is cumbersome and could use automation. When I receive an email, I should be able to forward it to a system and tag it with, at the very least, the sender's name and a title for the editorial project that the story is associated with. The system should respond via e-mail with a URL for editing the entry which I can click on an review before publishing into the transparency channel. The system could for example provide me with a way to look for specific text to redact and then do a search and replace on that that text (instead of me having to do it by hand) The system should include a database of contacts and a tickler that helps the journalist to understand whether or not a source has been notified of the journalist's transparency policy and how that source has responded. For example, the source may provide blanket approval to publish all notes or may say "Ask First." A more advanced feature could include a way to provide redactable text strings. For example, a boolean (true/false) field that goes with a source's e-mail address to that indicates whether the source is ok with having their e-mail address published or not. Let's say the answer is no. The "Redact Email Address" field would be set to true, and the next time I forward an e-mail into the system from that sender, the system automatically redacts all occurences of the e-mail address from the text (but still gives me the opportunity to review it). These are just some quick thoughts that I jammed out. When I get around to it, I will break these out into a separate category called Transparency System Spec and each spec item will get its own entry. As always more to come, and please comment. 6:23:43 PM    comment []

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Experiment's "journal" to be blogged here This will be the first in a long series of personal notes that go with my transparency experiment to record my thoughts about how things are going, my motivations for making certain decisions, and....(more) 11:14:28 PM    comment []

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Raw Data: Full thread on Scott Young's feedback re: transparency experiment Here's a copy of the e-mail thread between Userland Scott Young and me regarding his involvement as an interviewee in my experiment on media transparency. Says Young in this thread: "I would be much more comfortable under all circumstances in providing interviews if this was the general practice. I have little doubt this kind of transparency would have a positive (drive towards honesty) effect for all concerned."     1:48:40 PM    comment []

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

ZDNet's experiment in media transparency Serendipitiously, just when big media and grass roots journalists (aka bloggers) are coming under fire for a variety of transgressions in credibility, has the multimedia publish-and subscribe technology of podcasting come to the rescue, enabling journalists to broadcast new "transparency channels" that prove their credibility? In ZDNet's proof-of-concept of media transparency, executive editor David Berlind's experiment includes a column that relies on quotes from a recorded interview and then podcasts the uncensored and unedited recording. In the name of offering a view of the raw materials that journalists might otherwise obscure from public view (what could be considered a form of media transparency), not only was the raw recording podcasted, the column itself contains in-line time-codes in the text that allows readers to fast foward to exact location of the quotes in the audio file (download the MP3). This way, readers can check them to see if the interviewee (in this case, Scott Young, CEO of Userland) was misquoted, taken out of context, or if the interview was directed in a way that forced Young into saying something he might not otherwise volunteer (some journalists are accused of pursuing an agenda). With transparency channels like these, readers might be able to better gauge the credibility of a journalist or media outfit. For a full explanation of the experiment, see Can technology close the credibiity gap? or check out ZDNet's Special Report: Media credibility: Where podcasting meets transparency. 7:13:03 PM    comment []