I first saw the article in USAT's Facebook feed, and immediately wondered whether the story included Gannett's Moms Like Me subsidiary, which targets female consumers who have kids. (USAT apparently posted it via Facebook because the newspaper doesn't produce its own version of Moms Like Me. That's a subject for another day, however.)
In fact, the story doesn't mention Moms Like Me. It does, however, link to several other websites, including blogs written by women quoted in the story. One of them is a March of Dimes blog called News Moms Need: What moms and moms-to-be need to know. The other is Seattle Mamma Doc. And the story includes links to three other USA Today stories. All of that seems entirely appropriate.
But @12:44 p.m. claims the story didn't sit well with the 11th Floor: "Gracia Martore has ripped David Hunke a new ass because USAT did not mention Moms Like Me."
I don't know whether Gannett's president is really pissed at USA Today's publisher. Certainly, however, the "mommy wars" are a staple on Moms Like Me sites. A recent post on The Arizona Republic's included a debate over how a mother should have responded when, uninvited, another woman questioned her parenting skills in public.
I don't know whether the USAT reporter checked the discussion forums on Moms Like Me, or any of its rival websites. Still, it seems to me that USAT's story stood perfectly on its own.
Ethics vs. product placement
Now, I surely know the newsroom pressures to include Gannett businesses in stories -- whether the references are warranted or not. It's a form of product placement. Virtually all companies like to encourage synergies among their business units, to maximize revenue and profit.
But newspapers and TV stations have a special obligation to be fair and impartial. Deliberately favoring Gannett companies over rivals, just for the sake of boosting GCI's fortunes, would be unethical, and risk undermining reader trust. And that, in the long run, would do more harm to Gannett's bottom line.
Earlier: And, now, the 'Hot Dad' envelope, please . . .
Have you felt pressure to favor a Gannett business in a news story? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
Deliberately turning around part of your quote: Deliberately IGNORING Gannett companies over rivals, just for the sake of trying to be zealous about ethics, risks making your report less than complete.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the Moms sites are pretty well known, and (without checking) seem to the type of thing you would include in such a story. As worthy, or maybe more than, the competition. If they are as worthy, or more than, then you've done your readers a disservice to ignore them. Hell, I've been at local Gannett papers where competitors would get mentioned in stories, Gannett pubs would be ignored using the "ethics" argument, while the Gannett site produced a product that was CLEARLY superior.
So to ignore them not only hurts the bottom line but is, in my opinion, stupid.
Agreed, 6:37 pm: A Gannett business should not be omitted from a story solely because it's owned by the company.
ReplyDeleteI would add the following, which I didn't mention in my original post:
This issue of ethics potentially becomes more dicey as Gannett pushes the ContentOne strategy. For example, could/should this USA Today story have been produced by a Moms Like Me employee? Would a Moms Like Me employee include competitors such as Twitter Moms or Cafe Mom in the story? Should they?
A worthy journalistic topic.
ReplyDeleteBut for the record, Dave Hunke is on furlough this week so someone claiming Gracia e-mailed him furious about this is no doubt bogus, like so much information on this blog.
But it makes a good item, fills the void and proves once again that this blog cannot be trusted when it comes to what is really going on.
And yet: Can't Martore rip him a new one in absentia?
ReplyDelete6:37 -- I agree with you, but there's a problem if a non-editorial employee starts criticizing reporters, editors and publishers for ignoring Gannett-owned businesses after a story has already run.
ReplyDeleteThere's always something that can be added to a story. In fact, many important facts are often cut from stories because of space concerns. If there was no problem with the story, the editorial staff should not be criticized simply because it failed to promote a company product.
If the story was somehow "incomplete" because the Gannett product wasn't included, that might be different. But that certainly wasn't the case in the example given here.
Aside to Jim: You used Gannett and ethical in the same sentence. Were you trying to be funny or does it just come across that way to those of us who have worked for this company for more than a few years?
On the opposite end of that spectrum, USA Weekend did a special "moms" midweek issue last fall that partnered with Moms Like Me. And some of the carrier newspapers were upset because they have moms sites that are not affiliated with Moms Like Me and didn't want to promote something that wasn't theirs. A few papers threatened to drop the magazine altogether if Weekend printed that issue, but I don't know if any of them really did.
ReplyDeleteInclude the Moms stuff, because it is relevant to the story, and simply reference the Gannett connection. What concerns me is that Moms editors are being asked - ordered? - to pad their online numbers by getting people who are not really interested in Moms to sign up. Where is the ethics in that?
ReplyDeleteThis MomsLikeMe network is one big mess. The new woman, Carla, running it is just about ready to quit and Josh Resnick, who invented this Moms network has washed his hands clean of it and wants nothing to do with Moms anymore.
ReplyDeleteMr Andy Jacobson is screaming that there is not enough inventory to support any ad sales, so he is telling USA Today to start promoting it asap to help satisfy some large advertiser campaign commitments.
Seems like Digital is falling apart. On top of all of this, my manager is leaving to join Kevin Lefew and we have no direction and nothing is getting done.
W keep hearing that it will get better, but we have seen it get worse and more chaotic. No one is making any decisions.
This episode is an example of how Gannett bosses like to pull out some insignificant (almost silly) example in order to punish someone down the reporting line to make a point. Gracia is saying that she's in charge and has chosen this avenue to point it out to Mr. Hunke.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think that Gracia would send him an e-mail because he is on furlough, you don't know how things work at Gannett. The whole concept of a furlough, especially for managers, is a complete joke. It's simply a tool to appease those who make less money so that those that do can say "me, too."
The original poster didn't say anything about an e-mail. Assuming this exchange happened, how do we know it wasn't over the phone?
ReplyDeleteThe person mentioning the e-mail seems to be in the know. Probably saw it or was cc'd.
ReplyDelete