One hat at a time please

By now most people in the media, particularly the IT media, have heard of Graeme Philipson’s roasting by Media Watch for a shameless self promotion this time last week.

I too witnessed the exposition and, to be honest, could hardly contain my tears of laughter. Before you hate me for laughing at someone else’s misfortune, some background.

Quite a few Moons ago Graeme Philipson was the editor of a publication very dear to my heart. He’s very experienced, very talented, and has done a reasonable job of breaking the hack shackles to diversify his interests to include research and consulting services. Oh, and did I mention he’s a blast to share a drink with at media parties?

So when I see and Old Fart (Recognition trivia night thing) like Graeme get a slap over the wrist for giving his own market research services company a plug without declaring his vested interest it’s OK for me to have a chuckle. I think Graeme may have chuckled a little himself at getting caught.

Here’s the transcript of the cash register.

As far as I’m concerned it’s totally unacceptable for a journalist to have a vested interest on the side, and, even worse, for some vendor to masquerade as a journalist.

I strongly believe in wearing one hat at a time thank you very much. And this “conflict of interest” behaviour is not just confined to journalists. I know of quite a few people who paint themselves as ‘objective’ industry analysts or ‘members’ of interest groups and just happen to have their company details contained within (albeit at the end) of any written material aimed at generating publicity.

Of course, it may be possible to OWN two hats but WEAR one at a time, but this requires a little diligence on the part of the model. In all honesty even if Graeme had mentioned his interest at the end of the article would it really make a difference? I think any discerning reader would immediately scoff at the article’s objectivity – and Graeme’s too.

And yes, that link to Graeme Philipson under “Hacks” is the man in question. It was placed there well before any of this happened.

Graeme, gedda.info awaits your thoughts.

Rodney

About the author

IANAE! (I am not an epidemiologist)

Comments

  1. “I think Graeme may have chuckled a little himself at getting caught.”

    Yeah right. Frankly I doubt any journalist chuckles when they pick up the phone in the morning and realises they’re being investigated by MediaWatch. I would say you’re a bit off the mark here Rodney – his face probably froze instead in a death’s head grin.

    Probably about the same face your friendly local PR representative gets when they realise they’ve been featured (however anonymously) as the “victim of the week” on your hideous blog of doom +20.

  2. It’s a fair cop guv, I dun it. I referenced my own research company because it had the only data appropriate to the piece I was writing (it is because there is so little data in the connected home space that I started the company in the first place). As much as I thought of it at all when I did it, I said to myself that I have a long track record of quoting from all research companies, including my competitors, completely objectively. So I thought it was enough to be objective in this case.

    It was not. It was inexcusable to promote my own company withouit declaring my interest, and I was rightly castigated for it. Fairfax took a very dim view of it, and I was “rested” for 3 weeks after being very nearly dropped altogether. A timely reminder to us all to wear one hat at a time.

    Regards

    Graeme Philipson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *