|
David Berlind's Transparency and Disclosure FAQ
Everyone from readers to public relations people are asking questions
like, what will happen to my e-mails? Will you make them public
automatically? Will you take anonymous tips? Will you agree
to embargoes and NDAs? Etc. Etc.
So, here are some answers to those and other questions. Please
let me know at david.berlind@cnet.com if this FAQ doesn't answer your
questions. It is intended to be a living, breathing document that
will evolve over time.
The following questions are answered below:
- What is a transparency channel?
- It looks like you are practicing
transparency for some stories, but not others. How come? How do you
decide? Are you purposely being less transparent with certain stories
because you have something to hide?
- What are some examples of the raw materials that might turn up in the transparency channel?
- If I send you an email, will it automatically turn up in the transparency channel?
- What about anonymous tips, or
embagoed information that's submitted to you on a Non-Disclosure
Agreement basis (NDA)? How do you handle those?
- What about anonymous tips, or
embagoed information that's submitted to you on a Non-Disclosure
Agreement basis (NDA)? How do you handle those?
- I may be agreeable to the
republishing of any raw materials associated with me. But, if I
am, I may want any personal contact information like such as cell phone
numbers and email addresses to be removed. Is it possible to
redact that information?
- What if I don't agree to let you
republish any raw materials that come from me? Will that affect
your decision to cover my news, announcement, or tip?
- What companies do you own stock in?
- Are you on the payroll as an
employee or freelancer, directly or indirectly (in othe words, through
an agent), of any company other than CNET Networks? Or, have you
ever received any special payments from anybody since becoming a
technology journalist?
- What sort of gifts have you or would you accept from the companies you cover or their proxies?
- What about technology products that are sent to you? Do you keep those for personal use?
- What if I have other questions regarding your transparency policies?
- Could this document change?
Q. What is a transparency channel?
A. Imagine this.
Suppose CNN is channel 43 on your cable TV system. Over channel
43, CNN broadcasts its polished, edited, final product. But how
can you be certain of the credibility of that reporting? How can
you make sure a story you saw wasn't cleverly edited to make the
editor's subjective judgement appear as fact? Or that the facts
weren't slightly twisted by quotes and clips that are intentionally or
unintentionally placed out of context? Though it may not happen
on CNN (how would we know for sure?), this stuff happens all the time
in all media: TV, radio, print, and online. Michael Moore,
for example has been accused of this tactic in his last two
movies.
One way we could double check the credibility of a report, a big media
outfit, or a blogger is to see all of the raw materials that go into
the finished product. So, in my fictitious case of CNN (I don't
want to levy any accusations at CNN), imagine if you could switch your
TV from channel 43 to channel 42 and see the raw materials?
Perhaps you could also watch channel 42 to find out more about CNN's
reporters and the company's editorial process. If such a channel
existed, then you could probably call it a "transparency
channel." My definition of transparency is unobscuring that
which would otherwise be obscured -- a role that a transparency channel
could play. Then, by looking at the raw materials, you could be
your own judge of credibility.
With so many sources of information (including all mainstream media
outfits) on the Web, we have no ways other than word of mouth, public
perception, and history of publicly revealed transgressions to
determine which of them are credible, and which of them are not.
Now that all of them are using RSS as channels (the Internet is
the antenna) for their final product, there's no reason they can't use
RSS as the equivalent of the aforeproposed channel 42. A channel
that professional and armchair media watchers can use to tune into the
raw materials.
While they need to be wrapped in a user interface that's specific to
the task of building and maintaining transparency channels (doesn't
exist yet), RSS and most blog authoring tools (especially ones that
support enclosures) can easily serve as building blocks for
transparency systems. One great attribute of blogging authoring
tools is that they automate the creation of RSS feeds for the main blog
as well as for any subcategories. From the credibility checker's
point of view, they can tune into all raw materials or just the ones
behind a certain story. This is the reason I'm using a blogging
tool as the basis for my experimental transparency channel. One
reason Userland Radio makes a good choice is because of how it
has a built-in scripting language that can be used to automate certain
transparency tasks (for example, easily moving e-mails from my e-mail
system into the transparency system). More to come on that.
For more information on what a transparency channel is and why I'm
doing it, see David, what is a transparency channel? and Why are you doing this?
Q. It looks like you are
practicing transparency for some stories, but not others. How
come? How do you decide? Are you purposely being less
transparent with certain stories because you have something to
hide?
A. I have nothing to hide. As I said in the previous
answer, while the technologies exist to put together a transparency
channel,practicing transparency is by no means easy. Today, a lot
of effort --- too much effort --- is required to practice transparency
and to practice it well. So, as much as I'd like to practice it
for every story, I simply don't have the time. Also, this is an
experiment. The selection is random. So, if for example,
I'm working on a story and I realize I have a few extra minutes to
practice transparency for that story, then I might do it. I might
make an extra effort to do so if I anticipate the demonstration of a
new transparency idea or result that hasn't already been demonstrated
in the course of running this experiment. Given how
difficult it is to practice transparency for all stories, I've decided
to start creating the specification for a Journalists Online
Transparency System (JOTS). The idea behind JOTS is to streamline
the transparency process and to get software to do the majority of the
heavy lifting. I've created a separate category
in the transparency channel for listing requirements. If you have
suggestions for JOTS, please feel free to comment on an existing entry
there, or send me an email at david.berlind@cnet.com.
Q. What are some examples of the raw materials that might turn up in the transparency channel?
A. Basically, any information that goes into the creation of a story
whether it gets used or not. So, this includes but is not limited
to e-mails, press releases, URLs to relevant Web-based documents,
photographs, press releases, scanned images of hand-written notes, text
notes taken with a computer, and any audio recordings or video footage
of interviewees or events.
Q. If I send you an email, will it automatically turn up in the transparency channel?
A. No. After first publishing some e-mails in this fashion (as a
part of this experiment), I learned that this wasn't a good idea.
Even though those e-mails were to a member of the press (me) and
technically speaking, the press would like to assume that all
communications are on the record unless otherwise noted, this just
simply isn't the case. Perhaps in five or ten years, as the
protocol evolves, the press and those who correspond with it will be
able to assume that everything is fair game for republishing. But
right now, the protocol is "ask first." We (the other editors at
ZDNet and I) have always double-checked with readers who write letters
to the editor to us before publishing those letters. This will
also be the standard practice when it comes to emails from other
sources such as the people and companies I cover and their public
relations counselors. That said, it would be great
for the protocol to evolve to a point where everyone indicates in their
correspondences whether or not the material is freely republishable or
not. For an example of how some people are doing this, see my
blog entry on Semantics for public bloggability. It's not a bad idea.
So, in summary, I will not republish your correspondences without first
asking. So, don't be surprised if you get asked! When I
ask, I may also want to know if some or all of it is republishable and
if it's also attributable to you.
Q. What about anonymous tips, or
embagoed information that's submitted to you on a Non-Disclosure
Agreement basis (NDA)? How do you handle those?
A. NDAs and tips from tipsters requesting anonymity are fully respected.
NDAs and embargoes are important to the timeliness of the information I
provide. For example, I often do interviews in advance of
announcements in order to make sure I have the story finished on or
about the day an announcement is made. I couldn't do this without
agreeing to NDAs and embargoes. In the case of NDAed or embargoed
information, pursuant to my ask first policy, you may receive a request
to release the NDAed or embargoed information into the transparency
channel after the expiration time has passed.
In terms of tips from sources that wish to remain anonymous, this is
obviously one of those tricky areas of transparency. The press
would not be nearly as effective as it is without the ability to
protect anonymous sources. What these means is that the press
will never be able to be 100 percent transparent to the point that the
identities of anonymous sources will suddenly become available for all
to see. That said, there's no reason the press cannot catalog all
of the raw materials it receives in the course of building its stories
and, for the sake of being as transparent as possible, identifying
sources where that's fully permissable and in cases where anonymity is
critical, just saying "anonymous source." While this isn't 100
percent transparent, it's way better than what we have today which ,
for the most part, is nothing. In those rare cases, where
the identity of the source might be obvious from the content of the raw
material, then that content may have to be concealed as well.
This is why doing an experiment like this is so helpful. We get
to figure out just exactly how to strike a balance between truthful
reporting and full transparency. We need to find that sweet
spot where we can maximize transparency with minimal compromise to the
final product.
Q. I may be agreeable to the
republishing of any raw materials associated with me. But, if I
am, I may want any personal contact information like such as cell phone
numbers and email addresses to be removed. Is it possible to
redact that information?
A. Yes. Not only is it possible, it's already my standard
practice to redact that information. In almost all cases, there's no
need to go beyond identifying the source of the information (in the
case that the source allows it). Personal contact information
would only be revealed in the event that the person wanted that
information published so that they could be contacted by others.
Q. What if I don't agree to let you
republish any raw materials that come from me? Will that affect
your decision to cover my news, announcement, or tip?
A. Even before the idea of transparency came up, it wasn't uncommon to
make decisions on the basis of who a source was, how certain I was that
the source could be trusted, and whether or not they'd be willing to go
on the record or not. Many tips that have come my way have never
evolved into a story because the source refused to go on the record
and/or I had no way of independently verifying the information they
provided to me. On the other hand, some tips from trusted sources
have turned into stories. So, I don't see any change to the way I
make these sorts of judgement calls. In other words, transparency
on your behalf will not be a requirement for coverage any more than
being able to attribute certain information to a source was
before.
Q. What companies do you own stock in?
A. Currently, I own stock in only one company and that's CNET (my
employer). I also have a 401K plan. Like many 401K plans,
there's only a handful of funds and indexes that I'm allowed to invest
in. My selections and the allocation percentages (the
blend) are consistent with commonly implemented investment strategies
for someone who was born in 1961. None of my selections technology
specific funds or indexes. However, although I've never
investigated the matter, I'm rather certain that my fund and index
selections include technology stocks. However, I'm also certain
that the funds are sufficiently diversified to the point that no single
stock's movement can have a significant bearing on the valuation of my
401K portfolio. In other words, even if you believe that what I
write can affect the value of a specific stock, and that stock happens
to be a holding of one of my 401K funds, fund diversification
prevents me from ever benefitting from those effects.
Q. Are you on the payroll as an
employee or freelancer, directly or indirectly (in othe words, through
an agent), of any company other than CNET Networks? Or, have you
ever received any special payments from anybody since becoming a
technology journalist?
A. No. Since becoming a technology journalist in
1991, I have never received compensation from anyone other than my
employer. My employer was Ziff-Davis unti CNET Networks aquired
ZDNet. Now, I am a CNET Networks employee.
Q. What sort of gifts have you or would you accept from the companies you cover or their proxies?
A. I do not accept gifts of anything that's more than nominal
value. For example, t-shirts and baseball caps routinely show up
in the mail as does food (candy for example). I don't solicit
these materials and it's more trouble than it's worth to send it
back. Occasionally, I do breakfasts, lunches, dinners, or
drinks with the subjects of my coverage. They are never social
meals. In other words, the purpose of a get together may be to
eat, but it's always work-related. Sometimes, these meals are are
group meals where other journalists attend. The meals are never
extravagant. Sometimes I pay for my meals. Sometimes I don't.
Sometimes, a vendor will buy me a cup of coffee and other times I'll
buy them a cup. You get the picture. I just want to make it clear
that I'm not going on junkets to far away places or enjoying some other
extravangances at the expense of the people and the companies I cover.
Favor cannot be curried with me.
Q. What about technology products that are sent to you? Do you keep those for personal use?
A. Publishing evaluations of technology products is a part
of what I do. As such, vendors send me their products in hopes
that I will review them. After running PC Week's testing labs, I've
learned that it's difficult if not impossible to accurately assess a
product after using it for a week or two. As such, when I decide
to review a product that has been sent to me, I'll use it for an
extended period of time before writing an exhaustive review of
it. Sometimes, I never write the exhaustive review but I include
my observations in other stories I write. Sometimes, I just learn
from the product and factor what I have learned into my thinking about
technology, and thus much of what I write. So, having access to lots of
products and technologies on an ongoing basis is what helps me to write
an informed opinion.
Since it costs almost nothing for vendors to send software, software
often shows up at my doorstep unsolicted. Software never gets
returned and more often than not, I throw away everything but the
CDs. The CDs go into a box with thousands of other CDs that I
hope to use for an mosaic art project that I'd like to undertake one
day (does anybody know how to cut CDs up into little tiles?).
I almost never get hardware on an unsolicted basis. When I get
hardware, I invariably let the vendor know that it is my intention to
use it for an extended period of time so as to learn about all of its
high and low points and to be able to write about them.
Sometimes, I ask if its OK to keep the hardware for even longer to use
it to test other products. An example is a Dell Axim that was
furnished to me by Dell. It has a Compact Flash slot
(CF). I keep the Axim around in the event that I need to
test a CF-based peripheral (admittedly, I haven't done this in a
while). If I test one and write about it, the Axim will get
mentioned in the story as a part of my testbed. I don't use the
Axim for personal reasons. Another example is an Apple PowerBook
that I use to test a lot of OS X-based products. I've written many
times about my experiences with OS X and more recently have been using
the PowerBook to test technologies that can be used to produce
podcasts. This also turns into a test of OS X's
capabilties. For example, I'll be covering Apple's CoreAudio
technology in the not too distant future as a result of these
tests. The bottom line is that I never keep loaner products
around as a gift or for personal benefit. It is always for the
benefit of my readers and my coverage. I regularly use three
technology products for personal benefit: a Motorola v265 cell phone, a
Nikon D70 Digital SLR, and a Sony digital video camera. I paid
for all three with my own money and have the receipts to prove
it. Even then, I factor my experiences with these products into
my coverage. My computer is an IBM Thinkpad T42 that was
furnished to me by CNET Networks. I use it for all of my company
and personal computing. My PDA is a Good Technology G100
that's provisioned with wireless service by Cingular. It too was
furnished to me by CNET Networks.
Eventually, in the spirit of disclosure, I would like to keep a
public
catalog of the hardware products I have in my posession as well as
their disposition (being used for testing, not unboxed yet, ready for
shipment back to vendor, etc.). It's just a question of
time. As I said earlier in this document, it is taking a lot of
time to build this transparency channel. Hopefully, you'll look
at what I've done and think "Hey, he's making progress in an area that
not too many journalists are making progress in."
Q. What if I have other questions regarding your transparency policies?
A. Please e-mail me. Thanks.
Q. Could this document change?
A. Absolutely. I intend to update it as it becomes
apparent that I most disclose more information about my policies as a
journalist.
|
