Beer, Blogs And Bias
from the i'll-drink-to-that dept
The Wall Street Journal has an article focusing on a blog set up by Miller Brewing Company called Brew Blog. There are a few different, interesting points worth discussing here. First, the blog isn't used as a blog about what's going on at Miller Brewing. Instead, Miller hired an experienced reporter, and told him to just cover the beer industry as if he were a beat reporter. In other words, it's reporting news -- and even breaking stories on the competition. In fact, it revealed that main rival Anheuser-Busch was planning a new beer before A-B was able to make the announcement itself. This is certainly a recognition of how content is advertising. The blog clearly isn't "advertorial." It's full-on reporting about the industry, in a way that's interesting and relevant to those in the industry.
What may be even more interesting, though, is what the article says about journalism. In an age in which journalists are whining that their jobs are disappearing, here's yet another example of where suddenly there are new types of jobs for journalists appearing every day. But, even more interesting, is a quote at the end of the article highlighted by David Card. It's from Harry Schuhmacher, the editor and publisher of a fee-based trade publication on the beer industry:
"I tell Miller you're subsidizing a free publication, and it hurts the trade press," he says. "But they don't care."...Mr. Schuhmacher adds that he writes fewer positive pieces about Miller than he once did because he knows Brew Blog will always publish the same stories.Think about this for a bit. People complain that when you have a company-sponsored publication it will inevitably be biased -- but the sponsorship of that site is totally open and in the clear. The site's content stands for itself. Yet, at the same time, a supposedly "objective" traditional journalist is admitting that he writes fewer stories about Miller because he's upset that it's competing with his own publication. From that, it would certainly seem like the Brew Blog is a lot more credible (it's biases are out in the open), while this fee-based trade pub admits that story choices are sometimes based on personal vendettas.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Sources? by anon on Apr 25th, 2008 @ 8:29pm
Did you check with Harry Schuhmacher, to confirm that he has been correctly quoted and paraphrased by David Kesmodel (WSJ)? If so, some direct quotes, or at least a description of the research, should have appeared in the article. These are strong allegations against a media professional (Harry Schuhmacher).
Absent the research, the allegations in this article rely solely on the WSJ article by David Kesmodel; as such, this is hearsay.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Beer...ahhhhhh by Larry on Apr 25th, 2008 @ 9:04pm
I drink Miller Lite. I don't read trade publications, pay attention to advertising or read "beer blogs".
Why am I commenting you might ask? Well I guess even if I'm in the minority, just who is swayed by this type of "advertising"? A "journalist" or "blogger" doesn't matter to me. If a friend says a beer (pick your product) is great, I'll try it and make my own judgement.
Sorry for all the crap, I've been drinking.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sources? by inc on Apr 25th, 2008 @ 9:20pm
didn't know we were in a court of law... since when do blogs need to cite sources... Mike maybe there should be a works cited list at the end of each article in MLA format of course.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: SOurces by Har on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 12:27am
Well, it never hurts to have a source. Having sources can only help an argument/assertion and lend it credibility.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I call Hanlon's Razor on this one... by Dean Landolt on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 6:04am
"Mr. Schuhmacher adds that he writes fewer positive pieces about Miller than he once did because he knows Brew Blog will always publish the same stories"
My read on this quote is slightly different from yours -- it seems to be saying that Miller's disincentivizing him to give them positive press not because he's bitter but because he knows the angle's already covered.
It's still a pretty pathetic outlook, but I don't think the quote necessarily shows too much malice...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Yo on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 6:10am
Oh yes this is the future of journalism competing opinion pages that are paid for by competing corporate interests. No need for independent, unbiased coverage on a wide variety of topics. Once again Techdirt shows us THE FUTURE.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yo Yo (what? too cheesy?) by Dean Landolt on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 6:45am
Mike certainly isn't suggesting that nobody this is THE future of journalism, just one of many possible means for journalists to collect a paycheck. And do you really believe there's such a thing as independent, unbiased exists in traditional journalism? Really?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by MLS on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 10:03am
Just a passing note. Since August of last year that blog has generated a total of 51 responses. It is not at all clear, based upon the lack of responses (admitedly not an accurate measurement of how many persons actually read it) that it can fairly be said it poses any threat to a printed trade publication.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sources? by Mike on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 10:26am
Did you check with Harry Schuhmacher, to confirm that he has been correctly quoted and paraphrased by David Kesmodel (WSJ)?
Huh? No. Of course not. We write these posts based on what's reported. If Mr. Schuhmacher feels he was quoted incorrectly, he has every right and every ability to speak up about it. But, the WSJ certainly is a rather trustworthy source.
It's not "hearsay." This isn't a court of law. This was based on a well-respected publication who directly quoted the person in question.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 10:30am
Oh yes this is the future of journalism competing opinion pages that are paid for by competing corporate interests. No need for independent, unbiased coverage on a wide variety of topics
I never said this was THE future of journalism. It's just one way that journalism is changing. And, as for "independent, unbiased coverage" wasn't that what that other guy was supposed to be doing... yet showed he wasn't?
In fact, if anything having corporate sponsored journalists should INCREASE the demand and ability for independent journalists. If you get enough competing biased sources, then there will be a great place for an independent third party to sort through the bias and present the actual results.
These things aren't mutually exclusive, and I'm surprised that you think they are. Are you a journalist by trade?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 10:34am
Just a passing note. Since August of last year that blog has generated a total of 51 responses. It is not at all clear, based upon the lack of responses (admitedly not an accurate measurement of how many persons actually read it) that it can fairly be said it poses any threat to a printed trade publication.
Yeah, I certainly wasn't suggesting that this was a threat to the trade press, except for the trade publishers who admit that they're biased against the site.
Also, with such a focused topic, I don't think the number of readers really matter that much. It's a very small audience to begin with, and the number of comments probably don't mean much at all.
We discovered here, in the early years, that you need to reach a rather large critical mass before you can expect comments to occur regularly. So, sites that don't get regular comments may still have an awful lot of readers -- just somewhere below that critical mass line.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Wolfy on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 10:36am
I refer to NPR as Jewish Public Radio, Cnnas the Cristian News Network, And Fox, and the Official Toady New Network. There are very few "News" information sources in the US that aren't owned by or influenced by Corporate Amerika.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Wolfy on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 10:38am
I refer to NPR as Jewish Public Radio, Cnn as the Christian News Network, And Fox, as the Official Toady New Network. There are very few "News" information sources in the US that aren't owned by or influenced by Corporate Amerika.
Sorry about the mis-spellings in the previous post.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Peter on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 11:17am
"unbiased journalists" hmmm are there really such critters or are they just myths like "honest politicians" and "military intelligence"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by MLS on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 11:42am
We agree. My observation pertained to the print publisher's comments.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
News Business by DonD on Apr 26th, 2008 @ 1:21pm
NBC = GE.
WSJ = NewsCorp.
Newscorp = Fox News
CBS = Viacom
ABC = Disney
America has never had an unbiased news source. Never. News is a product. Successful products become brands. Brands need to be protected and mined for increasing revenue.
Of course, I'd prefer the not-so-well-hidden agenda of NPR or Frontline (how can educated people endure such idiocy), over the not-so-well-hidden agenda of Fox News (God and the wealthy need to be worshiped and obeyed)The terrifying thing today is how thinly it's being disguised...and how few people care.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
beerblog.com is down by JS Beckerist on Apr 27th, 2008 @ 4:37am
site is down anyway!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: BREWblog.com is down by JS Beckerist on Apr 27th, 2008 @ 4:38am
brewblog, not beerblog, sorry
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Beer...ahhhhhh by Jake on Apr 27th, 2008 @ 5:34pm
Put it like this, Larry. If they're smart enough to do really cool and interesting things with the Internet, they're probably smart enough to make beer that doesn't taste like chilled horse piss.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Beer...ahhhhhh by trigger on Apr 28th, 2008 @ 4:23am
how do you know what chilled horse piss tastes like anyway
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Karl on Apr 28th, 2008 @ 6:07am
I understand the economic rationale to argue that content is advertising, but I'm not sure that this incessant blurring of the lines between marketing and journalism (which used to be a quest to get to the truth) will turn out well....
Exxon's human rights abuses blog?
Halliburton's international military update blog?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Miller by Michelle on Apr 28th, 2008 @ 7:44am
The last point made is so true. Even the 'legitimate' media are forgetting what their objective it, in the fight for ad dollars.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Spike on Apr 28th, 2008 @ 9:42am
I don't drink beer so I'm hoping one of the tequila companies imitates this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
MBCo. Brew Blog by Rhinehard on Apr 28th, 2008 @ 11:27pm
If you think that the posts in Miller's Brew Blog are objective and purely pro-industry then you are very, very gullible. Go back and read the posts again. There has never been a critical post about Miller. Now, read the posts about A/B. All negative!!
You wrote.... "Miller hired an experienced reporter, and told him to just cover the beer industry as if he were a beat reporter" ....if you believe that, there is an awful lot you don't know about the beer business.
The posts in Brew Blog are purely pro-Miller and anti-A/B.
If I was Harry I would check and see if the Brew Blog author actually pays for his subscription to Beer Business Daily or if he pirates his like many of his fellow employees.
Rhinehard Heileman
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: MBCo. Brew Blog by Mike on Apr 29th, 2008 @ 1:14am
If you think that the posts in Miller's Brew Blog are objective and purely pro-industry then you are very, very gullible.
I never said that. I said that it's biases were clear and out in the open. Quite different.
Please do not accuse me of something I did not say.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Beer...ahhhhhh by Anonymous Coward on Apr 29th, 2008 @ 6:40am
The 60s weren't good to him.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I call Hanlon's Razor on this one... by Anonymous Coward on Apr 29th, 2008 @ 6:42am
Maybe not malice, but definitely a bit of incompetance. What would happen to CNN if they decided not to cover any stories that FOX would be covering any ways? If your product is news, you don't do yourself any favors by delivering less of it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by Anonymous Coward on Apr 29th, 2008 @ 6:44am
Their content would be advertising, but if all of their content is lies and misinformation, it's pretty poor advertising.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Apr 29th, 2008 @ 6:47am
I believe in unbiased journalists, but not unbiased editors.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment