Slashdot Mirror
A Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Media Outlets If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Advertising. More Than Half Said Yes. (breakermag.com)
Corin Faife, writing for BreakerMag: The level of deception used was minimal: we created a fake email account, and claimed to be representing a PR company. There was no fake website or domain associated; it was simply a Gmail address with a profile picture found by image searching "Russian actor." Next we compiled a list of blockchain media sites. This was by no means exhaustive, but to have a sense of the scale of the problem, we needed numbers. All in all, we reached out to 28 sites, and received a yes/no reply from 22 by the time of publication, with two inconclusive. [...] Of the 22 outlets who replied conclusively, 12 of them -- more than half the total -- were willing to publish paid content without disclosing it as such.
Not even a link to the article?
Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
Is it any real surprise that a high percentage of blockchain sites are kind of shady?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Headline: "Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Media Outlets If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Advertising. More Than Half Said Yes"
Summary: "Next we compiled a list of blockchain media sites. This was by no means exhaustive, but to have a sense of the scale of the problem, we needed numbers. All in all, we reached out to 28 sites"
I know it's trendy to accuse any news organization, publisher, studio, website, crazy-uncle's blog, or AM radio shack broadcaster as shady, untrustworthy, or otherwise peddling falsehoods.
On the other hand, there's a BIG difference between "media outlets" and "blockchain media sites," (whatever the hell those are). The headline implies that some number of the big and names that one encounters on a day-to-day basis (the NYTimes, CNN, Fox News, CBS/NBC/ABC, WSJ, etc.) may be publishing paid content as their own. The reality of this news item is...far more underwhelming.
Honestly, Slashdot Editor, this is sloppy work even by the usual low standards.
I read the article and none of them I recognise as "Media outlets". From what I have seen they are more like blogging sites.
Hey, I have a website. Give me 5000USD and I post something for you without saying where it came from.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The headline neglects to mention that these are blockchain media sites.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Some editors will substitue a blog post or news article with a properly written PR to save time on their end.
Fuck you Slashdot, seriously.
Been reading for a long time, and every fucking time there's a good story about cryptocurrencies, or even specifically about Bitcoin, the story logo is always a Dollar bill or some other bullshit.
When its some shady crap, you fuckers put the Bitcoin logo front and center, or if its about some aspect of the space involving scammers, con-men, etc...
Just come out and say it. "Slashdot doesn't like Bitcoin, and here's the latest story on why you should keep things just as they are FOREVER."
Corporate fuckbags.
it was simply a Gmail address with a profile picture found by image searching "Russian actor."
Zounds! Now even fake Russians are undermining the integrity of our ... er ... blockchain news blogs?
What is this "Breaker" mag? I can't even find a wiki page. I guess good for this guy for hustling and honing his skills, but the site he's writing for has no better reputation than the sites he's targeting.
Never heard of it either but at least the Editor-In-Chief has some amount of reputation as a Fast Company staff writer. Take that as you will.
The other 50% were probably angling for a better price
You forgot to hit the "Anonymous Coward" button.
These are simply blogs for Cryptocoins.
Too bad. He should have tried this with Fox, Breitbart, Daily Stormer, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. and seen if a one of them would do that. I have my suspicions that several will, but few of us could afford it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Sketchy Bloggers If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Advertising. More Than Half Said Yes.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
From TFA title:
We Asked Crypto News Outlets If They’d Take Money to Cover a Project. More Than Half Said Yes
(a) "Crypto News Outlets" is not really the same as "Media Outlets" -- to be fair though, TFS says "blockchain media sites".
(b) Who cares? They're crypto / blockchain media outlets/sites -- whatever the hell *that* means.
(c) See (b).
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
They had no problem outing the offenders, but where was the list of those who showed some integrity and shut that crap down? They make the point that the offenders were "used as trusted news sources", implying that they were doing a public service by outing those that shouldn't be trusted, but then they didn't bother to list those in whom such trust is well placed.
The disparity in treatment almost makes seem like there was some other motive to this article besides objective journalism. Like this news outlet that focuses on crypto might have something to gain from shaming naughty news outlets focusing on crypto and not mentioning the names of news outlets focusing on crypto with integrity. Hmmm...
Ironic that one of the tags at the bottom of the article is "ethics".
I must retract the above statement. They did list the good guys. It was one sentence near the end of the article with no other discussion so I over looked it. Mea culpa.
Still, the statement starts with "Without dwelling wholly on the negative", when the fact is that this one sentence in the entire article is the only element that wasn't dwelling on the negative.
Reporter posing as sketchy PR guy asks sketchy sites to do sketchy things. Some say YES!
There isn't a single aspect of cryptos that isn't a scam.
all content on the various media outlets regardless of their media type is paid content. even intranetwork advertising is paid content. on tv there was just now a liberty mutual commercial and at no point did the network prefix it with "and now a paid content thing"
It seems like 50% of "blockchain" media outlets had journalistic integrity. I would call this a win.