-
My problem is the repeated obstacle of journalists saying "if we know how the business works, we're ethically compromised" which is nonsensePermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 5 Retweets
❤️ 12 Favorites
Mood -6 🙁
-
The real problem is that if you don't know how the media business works, you might be ethically compromised and not even realize it.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 4 Retweets
❤️ 9 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
Do you think readers who get clickjacked to malware sites think you operate ethically? Do they really care about the paper wall around you?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
No. They don't. If you're site runs unethical advertising, *you*--the journalist--are being perceived as unethical. Readers will think that.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -5 🙁
-
The real problem is that journalists think readers understand even the minimal amount they understand about the business.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
You can't have it *both ways*. Journalists complaining about clickbait->readers think you understand the economics of clickbait.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
And you DO! But they don't. So now if you're on a site that does clickbait, you're ethically compromised in the eyes on the standard reader.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood 0
-
There is a reason that term gets misused so much among vocal readership. It's because they don't understand it; not because its an attack.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
Journos, you're in this, you don't get to shrug & say 'well I don't understand the biz, if you get ripped off by bad ads, it isn't about me'Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
There are ads that are unethical to run, readers get this, *journalists* get this - poynter.org/2013/the-atlantic-pulls-sponsored-content-from-church-of-scientology/200593/Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
If we have responsibility over some unethical ads, we have responsibility over *all* unethical ads, including ones from networks.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
When we allow stuff like this robleathern/743916011355774976 to run next to our content? That's a signal to readership that we're not to be trustedPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +5 🙂
-
You cannot operate ethically as a journalist unless you understand how you're getting paid and what goes into that process. Period.On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood 0
-
Any journalist who tells you (many will) ignorance of business side preserves ethics is *wrong*. It only blinds you to unethical behavior.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -6 🙁
-
And as journalists we should know better than anyone that pretending our own organizations' ethical challenges don't exist is unacceptable.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
B/c you can pretend that fraudulent & malicious advertising next to your work doesn't compromise your ethics; but readers will know better.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
I'm neither a fan nor enemy of ad blockers, but within this context for readers it's understandable they could see em as a moral imperative.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +1 🙂
-
Acknowledging the problem won't make it go away tomorrow, but journalists paying attention to the ethics of ads will take us a long way.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁