IBM digital marketing boss: Haymarket editor is an idiot, industry laughs at Australia’s tech journalism and I’ve got a migraine

not the first time this has happened …

Tech journalism: srs bsnss

the point that is getting lost here is the amount of coverage that Google gets for not doing much, case in point the ipad ‘competitor’, one thing to report on ‘Interesting moves from large companies and media players’ another to just become part of their PR machine

Anyone seen a social media policy fro IBM?

yes – http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html

From the document ….

“Respect your audience. Don’t use ethnic slurs, personal insults, obscenity, or engage in any conduct that would not be acceptable in IBM’s workplace”

Seems like a breach to me. “Wow @natecochrane: You seriously are an idiot. I am not on Twitter to represent IBM or anyone else and I am tech agnostic. Get a clue”

Both of them should grow a pair and duke it out I tell ya! Tweets would read “It’s the match up the tech world was waiting for!” “A battle of David and Golaith” Nate ‘the idiot’ Cochrane, goes toe to toe with Martin ‘The Troll’ Walsh in a battle Royale!

I love the way that douche bags feel that they can sling mud at one another from the safety of their desks.

Go on boys, have it out! IBM can sponsor it, Haymarket can be the media partner, you can film it, blog it, tweet it, make a facebook page and fan it, call your journo buddies and cover it! If it’s successful, we can make it an annual event.

By 2015 it will be a corporate challenge and we can donate the proceeds to a NFP that is considered to be choice for other corporates who are just figuring out CSR. We can all grow mos and shift it to November and have a gala dinner about it, and each year, we will remember our founding fathers Nate and Martin, to whom we owe so much!

In the words of a wiser man than I – If you build it, they will come…

Hi all,

This issue began with a generalised discussion and debate online yesterday about a topic I believe passionately about. I did not say what I said in an IBM capacity, in fact IBM has specific social computing guidelines which outline acceptable online behaviour for IBM employee’s. What I said were my own personal views as a technology consumer and I didn’t think that anybody would attribute my own personal comments on Twitter to me speaking on behalf of IBM.

I have always been honest and transparent in my views about digital marketing, the technology industry, the film and media industries. I took offence at being labelled a ‘Troll’ and I felt my integrity was being questioned but I broke my own rule (and IBM’s) of not engaging with someone in that tone.

Regards,
Martin

Doesn’t anyone do any work anymore?

I’m not going to wade into the row between Martin and Nate.

But I will say I agree with Martin that Australia’s technology media is extremely weak at the moment when it comes to conducting investigative journalism and publishing analysis and commentary on the technology industry.

Many senior technology journalists have left the reporting field over the past couple of years, and as a result there are many stories and many angles going unreported as junior journos struggle without enough experience. Martin’s right — we are being laughed at.

There are some reporters — Ry Crozier at Cochrane’s own company Haymarket being a good example, who are leading the charge to take back the field though, and there is light emerging at the end of the tunnel.

Cheers,

Renai LeMay
Publisher
Delimiter

@ long time listener, first time caller – the only issue with your stellar idea is that, given our combatants are clearly deeply entrenched in the tech industry, they may well lack the physical strength for any sort of physical exertion – let alone fisticuffs – rendering our match low on entertainment appeal.

Perhaps instead they should have a fastest most pointless tweet-off, or even better, a battle on some pier to pier gaming thing that other screen demons can watch. That would really shine light on their manly, technical prowess and show they have the courage of their convictions.

If only someone could start a new tech journalism startup built arounda new busines model, huh Renai? 😉

Personally, I’d like to just see Walsh stop writing tweets that read like text messages from a 14 year old schoolgirl. Seriously, there is no need for all the contractions people use, it’s insane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....guation%29

“I didn’t think that anybody would attribute my own personal comments on Twitter to me speaking on behalf of IBM.”

No of course not, how could anyone not think you’re a representitive of IBM ….

# Name Martin Walsh
# Location iPhone: -33.849445,151.136414
# Web http://bit.ly/dSjU1
# Bio Head of Digital Marketing @IBM

@ Martin. You have my sympathy but when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Its a wee bit of the subject but the Battle of Long Tan doco was outstanding … congrats Martin 🙂

Too many people are faceless and post obsurd comments on blogs. These people are rarely ever accountable for their, at times, mindless actions.

Ziggy Stardust gets me jiggin. Especially at barbecues where tech journalists are not invited. Digihub – it’s just an advert…

@ Renai LeMay – Way to go for some one who is ‘not going to wade into the row between Martin and Nate’!

I’m also not interested in the dispute between Nate and Martin, but agree with some of the views expressed here about the quality of journalism in Australia.

Unfortunately, it’s not just tech journos who lack analytical skills, but pretty much everyone. I also don’t think it’s journos fault — there is a serious lack of investment, support and mentoring in the Australian media industry.

Maybe one of the reasons everyone complains about Australian tech journalism is because of the reposting of articles. However the few Tech Journo’s i know rarely have the time to get out of the country to do major investigative articles.
Thus the home grown articles seem second-hand, as its comments from Australian representatives (perhaps like Walsh) of international companies (google referenced) about stories which have already broken internationally, but we want to have our say.
However although i support local journalism, i would think the tech industry above all others would be more accepting of international news sources.
Most of the “hot topic” tech adventures are happening overseas, not here.

it’s not as bad as banana smoothies, but does serve as yet another example of a marketing person having no PR sensibility, to the detriment of their company

WOW…

why is one of the most pertenat aspects of this debate continually overlooked by Mr Walsh…… “Troll is a verb”

to clarify for you Mr Walsh….he was not refereing to the hairy little man that lives under the bridge…

1. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Angling) Angling
a. to draw (a baited line, etc.) through the water, often from a boat
b. to fish (a stretch of water) by trolling
c. to fish (for) by trolling
2. to roll or cause to roll
3. (Music, other) Archaic to sing (a refrain, chorus, etc.) or (of a refrain, etc.) to be sung in a loud hearty voice
4. (intr) Brit informal to walk or stroll
5. (intr) Homosexual slang to stroll around looking for sexual partners; cruise

Err Matt…

I don’t think that dictionary definition of the *verb* troll (as opposed to the hairy guy under the bridge – *noun*) helped your case.

It’s hilarious he still thinks he was being referred to as an entity that lives under bridges and scares little children..

Is it this type of social media acumen that allows you to be head of digital at a tech multinational? Bloody hell, how do I get a gig like that?!

http://adspace-pioneers.blogsp.....itter.html

@Renai,

At least reveal your interest. You’ve consistently sold Delimiter as a way for tech pubs to free their resources for investigative journalism because you can sell them cheap churnalism.

@Martin

Are you so naive as to believe that Nathan or any other editor you abused would care if you were talking on your own behalf or IBM’s when it come to relationship building or brand perception?

@Tim – troll

@matt terrific point – see Wikipedia entry above from yours truly. Its just a shame that Troll isnt used more widely on Twitter.

Now, now. Let’s cut Martin some slack.
His own Tweet explains his behaviour:

“OK, onto a record pill 5 & 6 of Neurofen Plus for the day to try and get rid of this goddam migraine…please work!”

So maybe IBM’s Social Media policy should include: “Don’t TUI (Tweet Under the Influence)…

Martin,

heres an interesting article you should read.

http://theyearofthecat.com/

@matt Is he under the bridge? I thought he lived in a cave or was on the bridge. Perhaps that is an ogre or a goblin.

@Sir G,

of course I have an interest! It’s chronicled in the holy pages of Mumbrella rather nakedly 😉

One of the reasons I started Delimiter was because I wanted to boost the quality of technology journalism in Australia. It’s a matter I’ve discussed previously with Martin on Twitter.

However I would question your comment that I do “churnalism”. I think it’s hard to argue that I am just a press release merchant, and certainly publishing houses wouldn’t buy my services if that was all there was to it.

Just imagine if there was no Twitter. This conversation could have been on the phone, over a coffee or a beer at a pub. But bring SM into it and it becomes a battle of the egos – including many who feel they have to immediately comment just so they can claim to be the first to post.

OH i love it. Silly little boys.
Social media biting both of them in the arse.

Geoff – or the last my friend…

You could have taken the moral high ground but alas you unmasked yourself and your business and I cannot be seen to be associated with an ego bigger than mine.

@Geoff Hoddinott: Possibly the most sensible thing anyone has said on the (shambolic) debate thus far.

Clearly neither of them have enough work to do…

3rdEar, I purposefully made it simple for anyone to see who I was and where I worked so that they could take that into account when weighing up my comment. I could have changed it to some weird nom de plume, but what would that added to the sum total of human knowledge?

i’m still yet to see any specifics / basis for Martin’s original comments that tech journalism in Australia is poor. There is more tech journalism in Australia than ever and plenty of quality publications.

And certainly, in our case, traffic to technology stories continues to go through the roof. There is immense reader interest in the latest news from Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.

Although we tend to cover more mainstream consumer tech pieces rather than hardcore tech industry stuff.

To be frank, I can’t think of anything IBM’s done lately that would be interesting for my audience..

I agree with others that tech journalism in Australia could be much better so Asher I think you need to step outside the bubble. There are far too many junior tech journo’s simply publishing press releases or reposting and following other genuine tech sites and offering too little analysis, judgement & thoughtful opinion.

Did you even read his comments from Twitter Asher? Reading Martin’s comments he clearly said he wasn’t talking about ibm or speaking for ibm and said he was making general comments. I didn’t see any names or sites targeted? Its interesting that the headline also implies Martin picked the fight with Nate but if the sequence above is right then Nate fired the first personal salvo.

I’m one of those who can’t understand what all the fuss is about. Are we saying that people can’t debate topics or express opinions on Twitter? I just took a quick look back through Martins tweets and I can’t see any tweets on behalf of ibm so clearly its his own account. Did anyone else check that?

I say bring on the different opinions….just please keep them civil….

Crap journalism… The remarks about the quality of tech journalism applies to all fields, not just tech. How many times do you read an item from the general news sections of the dailies and smell the sweet stench of a press release? It happens everywhere.

The entire media sector is going through fairly big changes at the moment, which impacts the investment and subsequently the time spent on researching unique stories.

I would like to see a list of the ‘industry heavyweights’ that laugh at OZ tech media. Just out of interest. 😉

Its tough being a tech journo when the tech companies use useless PR agencies who fail to respond to the tech journo’s requests on products for reviews, news and general articles, hence the last resort use of press releases.

If you lot in the tech industry want better tech journalism, then ensure your over-promising and under-delivering PR agency become best friends with the tech journo’s.

Just to second everything that Liam Tung said. Resources are so squeezed it’s a miracle there isn’t more blank paper and black screens getting published.

It’s all my fault. I’m sorry.

@Tech journo’s or your PR?
Would you like the poor PR people to write your stories as well? If you are relying on PRs then I would question your journalistic credentials.

@Renai
That’s complete bullocks. Press rewriting and coverage of commodity stories is exactly why publishing houses would pay Delimiter – to release the resources to do quality journalism, for a change. Paying you for freelance articles is another matter entirely.

@Liam
+1, well said.

Yellowbelly: it has been surveyed and reported for a number of years that over 70% of editorial content across most media verticals can be attributed to internal and external PR folk… “poor” or not. Renai is 100% correct in his comments. Most publishing houses I deal with are staff-poor, making it very hard for investigative pieces or in-depth industry articles to be researched, compiled and prepared. As for freelancers… you are a valued resource for both PR and publishers, providing a totally different ‘take’ and value-add to the finished product of publishing. Can we leave it there?

Thank god Renai is here is save journalism with his excellent Delimiter service.

Just think if he didn’t start delimiter – investigative journalism would be dead and we’d be stuck reading his pathetic four paragraph stories which were in fact nothing more than follow-ups from his competitors’ scoops.

Oh the irony.
IBM released a product this week in an IT niche I track. The company seems to have briefed a local analyst on it but I have been told the company held back on making the announcement official so that another, more significant, product launch would get all the attention.
FWIW, the “more significant” product launch had a lavish launch overseas, but no discernible outreach to media in Australia … or none I was made aware of.
Just how is the IT media supposed to provide meaningful analysis when the company won’t even communicate its wares to media?

Does nobody else see the irony about this story being considered newsworthy, presented in the context of a discussion about the declining quality of journalism?

I do agree that the quality of journalism in Australia is on the decline due to financial pressures – and possibly even as a result of Social Media’s encroachment into the need in peoples’ lives for news, once exclusively fulfilled by traditional media.

Let me be clear to the point of stating the obvious: I believe quality journalism to be where the journalist gathers all the facts relating to a specific topic (including those obscured from plain sight – which in theory is the key differentiating factor of journalism vs… blogging, say), and communicates all facets of that topic impartially to allow the reader to make an informed opinion. Per above, most “journalism” these days simply involves repeating plainly obvious and widely available facts.

Therefore while I agree with Martin’s assertion about the lack of quality journalism in Australia, I disagree with his reasoning that there is no “judgement and analysis”. In fact I’d go so far as to say that there’s too much of it, and that the disappointing thing is that it’s delivered “Judge Judy” style – picking at the low-hanging fruit and completely lacking in depth. Or maybe that’s the intent these days, so that it generates discussion and increases “buzz” and “engagement”.

Sadly, this introduces the notion that Australia’s failings are two-fold, poor journalism -and- poor analytical writing (whatever form that might take).

Tim, I’d have to be a hypocrite to criticise the conversation while participating in it 🙂

My comment was really a shot at the “quick and dirty analysis” that has crept into journalism as a way to incite participation (by taking sides, for example), thereby increasing engagement, leading to greater exposure and hopefully more sales. Is this a bad thing from your side of the fence? Surely not. But it doesn’t bode well for the purity of journalistic endeavour. It’s like selling your soul 🙂

While the general state of Australian journalism is pretty grim (have you ever counted the grammatical errors and incorrect punctuation in any given mainstream publication?), I’ve got to commend the technology media for maintaining a higher standard. Having worked with the media here, in Europe, and the US, I’d say the Aussie tech journalists are the only ones on par with their overseas counterparts in terms of industry knowledge, relevant commentary, and plain old writing skills. You couldn’t really make the same comparison between local and international journalists covering most other sectors without Australia coming up short – not to mention in need of a good style guide.

The quality of journalism online has gone down as a direct result of media chasing traffic instead of thinking about their core audience. As recently noted back in late 2009 at a paidcontent conference chasing SEO & SEM traffic at the expense of your media brands core audience values is a recipe for shite!

Online journalism needs to think about readers and creating destinations where their audience wants to visit and dwell for a sizeable period of time.

All constantly chasing SEO and SEM traffic does is drive down advertising rates and all the while in the process drive your core audience away instead of drawing them in.

I started a blog http://www.themusicvoid.com back in April 2008 as a rant about what was wrong with the music business and its engagement with technology. Since then we have spun two other complimentary businesses out of that…I believe this is primarily because the blog always stayed true to research, analysis and opinion. Those are the key elements of journalism. As soon as you compromise those journalistic values you are on a slippery slope to oblivion as a media source!