Bloggers need media training too

The very public spat between Microsoft's über-blogger, Robert Scoble, and The Register's Andrew Orlowski continues to do the rounds.

I haven't been following it in intricate detail (there are many others who are commenting), but it seems to boil down to Orlowski highlighting a potentially anti-competitive "bug" in the beta version of Internet Explorer 7.0, Scoble saying there wasn't a problem, and then The Register producing an email that Scoble allegedly sent to a tester suggesting that he had witnessed the same thing himself.

Wherever the truth lies and wherever this ends up, it points to one thing:

High profile corporate bloggers like Scoble need media training just as much (if not more so) as the c-suite spokespeople who talk to journalists at The Wall Street Journal and CNN.

The natural reaction of any human being is to challenge inaccuracies. But bloggers will always have a tendency to do this publicly via their blogs. Media training will teach them that this isn't always the best way. Sometimes you just have to let it lie...

Published 01 August 2005 09:59 by Niall Cook

Filed under: Miscellaneous

Comments

• 

  Nathan Weinberg said:

  I completely disagree. One of the biggest advantages of the blogosphere is the increased accountability for everyone, whether they are Dan Rather or Robert Scoble. If a media outlet is misrepresenting someone (especially if it is the grossly irresponsible Register), someone needs to call them out on it. The old rules no longer apply. Scoble needs to be teaching the reporters they can't get away with this anymore, not the other way around.
  August 1, 2005 14:48
• 

  Niall Cook said:

  Nathan,
  
  I'm not sure which part of my post you're disagreeing with. I'm not suggesting that either side is right or wrong, or that one should be teaching the other.
  
  I'm simply saying that in a corporate environment, high-profile bloggers who are speaking for their organisations (intentionally or not) should also undergo media training so that they can better decide when less is actually more.
  August 1, 2005 14:53
• 

  Robert Scoble said:

  I have a major in journalism so have four years of media training.
  
  I also have been in touch with top executives, lawyers, and PR professionals throughout the industry on this issue.
  
  I disagree that we shouldn't call out people who so obviously lie and libel on their sites. The old school days are over. In the old days we'd lie down when lies were printed. Not anymore.
  August 1, 2005 23:59
• 

  Niall Cook said:

  Robert,
  
  Thanks for commenting.
  
  For what it's worth, I am not suggesting that you should lie down on this or any other issue, nor questioning your ability to deal with the media.
  
  My point is a general one, and is actually more critical of my own industry in failing to recognise the blogger as a corporate spokesperson and training them accordingly.
  
  I was using your recent experience as an example.
  August 2, 2005 11:08
• 

  Jonathan said:

  I've followed the Scoble/Owlowski issues for a number of weeks. I think the most important aspect of this is that when one makes a mistake you admit it. The one thing that's clear is that Scoble has a track record of doing this, whereas Orlowski does not.
  
  I agree that you can't fight every battle and judging which one's to fight are important, but as you read through the blog entries and history the reality will become apparent.
  
  One of the issues is that blogging has created a slew of "experts" that don't follow the basics of good journalism, namely fact checking. This is a case in point and unfortunately will grow as blogs are getting paid for online ads. The old rules don't apply and blogging is changing them once again.
  
  The key is always going to be to fess up when you make a mistake or are wrong, since you will err sometimes.
  
  Note: even those who don't agree with Scoble most of the time have defended him in this case. That's a result of history and reputation.
  August 6, 2005 00:25