Shared publicly  - 
I've been responding to comments on a post about my article on the Daily Beast today about Robert Scoble looking to get involved with an angel fund. This has set off a bit of a debate about online journalism and whether we're all a bunch of click whores.

First off: The news today is simply that Scoble has been trying to raise an angel fund. I heard about it from a VC, checked with Scoble, who says he's interested but hasn't got too far along yet -- and then reported that.

Someone points out that the Daily Beast, where I work, also tries to drive clicks. That's true. The Daily Beast does lots of things to boost traffic, including linking to stories here on G+ hoping to attract readers. Most online news organizations do things to drive traffic. We all try to craft our stories in a way that makes people want to read them and find them interesting.

But -- and this is a significant difference -- reporters at places like the Beast or NY Times or other outlets are not allowed to take money from VCs and start an angel fund and invest in companies that we write about. Try to imagine Pogue or Mossberg or Nick Bilton or Harry McCracken starting an angel fund and keeping their day job.

This is not to say one group is better than the other. Bloggers can do this, but mainstream reporters play by a different set of rules than bloggers. Having been both a blogger and a mainstream media guy, I see value on both sides. I definitely know which side was more fun. If bloggers can find ways to get rich off their blogs, more power to them.

Another way to look at this is that really it's not journalism but rather is a new form of public relations (and a threat to the established PR industry). As I say in my Beast article:

"In a way, what these bloggers are really doing is creating a new kind of PR firm, one where the promoters get paid not in billable hours but in early-stage equity. If you’re a startup, this makes a lot of sense. Why pay a PR agency millions of dollars and hope they can get you some favorable coverage when you can just bring on an investor who will write the articles for you—and reach a bigger, more targeted audience than mainstream media outlets like the New York Times could ever do?"
The traditional way that companies go about getting press coverage is expensive and inefficient. They hire a PR agency, and/or a bunch of in-house PR people, and pay lots of money to those people hoping they can go out and schmooze the press and get some good stories placed. Why go through all that when now, in the Internet age, you can build (or buy) your own media coverage? Tumblr is doing this and just hired away one of my colleagues at Newsweek to lead a new site devoted to covering Tumblr and its world of bloggers.

What I really wonder is why more companies are not yet doing this. I suspect we'll see more doing it in the future.
Joe Buhler's profile photoDaniel White's profile photoJim S's profile photoGabriel Zeta's profile photo
Robert, here is your email response to the email I sent you: "Hah. There is some bar talk about this but nothing official yet. I am interested but not anywhere close and certainly I wouldn't be managing it. Who was it?"

Where in this email do you say you're not trying to raise a fund? You say there's "nothing official yet" and that "I am interested."
Isn't +Robert Scoble's job already to be a spokesperson for Rackspace? Presumably there is already a conflict of interest there: startups could get better coverage from Scoble if they agree to use Rackspace.
Yep, that's the no longer so new world of the social web. Everybody can be everything, including their own PR agency, marketing firm, ad agency and mainstream media intermediaries are no longer the gate keepers.
+Robert Scoble I think my point was more that this wouldn't really be a change in your objectivity. People who follow your work should already be aware of the fact that you're not an independent observer.
Stating that there is a conflict of interest doesn't make it magically go away. It just lets people make a better judgement about whether they should agree with your opinions.
+Robert Scoble I guess it would be more complicated as a VC, yes. To be clear though, I'm not intending to attack you, I'm just saying that I wouldn't see this as a desertion of the ethical high ground.
Jim S
So if mainstream reporters do not invest in Tech can I ask you how much money you have tied up in tech companies +Dan Lyons ?
The part about +Robert Scoble not saying in the email that he's not trying to raise a fund is hilarious. It's like the classic "there's no prove that god exists, but there's no prove that he doesn't exist either!" Sheesh.
Add a comment...