What I find harder to understand is the apparent pursuit of even more conflicting relationships. It is almost as if pre-existing conflicts of interests are used as an excuse for not even bothering to try to limit the potential for bias. Of course, we’re, also, talking about sites having to admit that they occasionally do favors for publishers in order to insure that they’ll get good stories handed to them later.

I didn’t stay for the whole panel, but I don’t recall Hargro actually naming anyone. Rather I thought he offered an anecdote to illustrate that real people are on the ‘other end’ of the journalism. Did he actually name anyone?

I think I asked the first question, and what I was getting at is the immediate nature of blogging versus more reasoned news like the Comics Journal used to do (sorry to hear that they don’t anymore). I think there’s a need for time to reveal what’s important, or true, about a story. I also think there’s plenty of room for ‘quick hits’ or PR puff pieces. Hell, Entertainment Weekly built an empire on them.

Promotion occurs just by virtue of the discussion. CBR, Newsarama, etc., no different in philosophy than Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, etc.

Obviously, there is place for reporting on the business side of comics, like the DiDio stuff, the Platinum stuff, the TOKYOPOP stuff — but has anybody been stopped from talking about those things? Clearly not.

Frankly, the only thing about this panel discussion that shocked me was Carlton Hargro’s naming of a creator whose book he reviewed writing in to say Hargo’s negative review was right and that he was having problems with that issue. Not the sort of email I would share in public, and possibly unethical.

“Why is this even an issue? Everythings fine, theres plenty of great news outlets for comics news, articles, interviews etc. Why does there have to be criticism of everything? Its a hobby industry. Most of the people who run the sites or podcasts or blogs have day jobs.”

But don’t you know, Matt, that this humble hobby industry is but a mild-mannered cover for…

THE SUPER-EVIL ‘CULTURE INDUSTRY?’

As such, it must relentlessly critiqued and reported on until it is hounded into a slough of despond. It’s the truly moral thing to do.

That’s why.

I guess in the case of a site like Newsarama, what’s really missing is some level of disclosure; as a “first-person” (okay, often “third-person”) blog, The Beat establishes a more direct relationship between writer and reader, as does a site like The Comics Reporter. Or even io9, which is a group blog. I think this makes it easier to pick up on what exactly you’re dealing with when it comes to the “standards” or goals of a writer.

I think you’re right, Ken, in that Newsarama operates with the front of an “objective” news source and doesn’t really make any attempts to inform readers about their true goals, which seem to be promotion and entertainment more than reporting. In that sense, I’m with you that there should be some level of communication about where stuff comes from, although that might damage the “credibility” of the site…

…but then if we can all just agree that none of these places have really any serious level of “credibility” in an objective journalistic standards sense, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.

Tucker: I’ll fess up that I didn’t listen to the panel–I should do that, probably, if I’m gonna write on this (then again, maybe I won’t–I’m a blogger damnit and I can be as uninformed as I wanna be!)–but I’d say PR and promotional shit are both pretty vital parts of journalism, whether you’re printing PR in total without comment or using it as a preliminary communication to instigate a story. I’ve done both for “day jobs” and hobby crap alike.

There’s a place for printing press releases or previews or spoon-fed creator interviews on a website–pretending it’s “news coverage” is probably where things fall apart. Again, though, just fucking TELL ME what you are doing and I won’t even care.

Kevin Church adds a simple line to some of his posts: “A copy of XXXX was provided for review.” That to me tells me everything I need to know about his personal standards as a blogger, and I mean that as a compliment.

Anyway, I’m confusing things a bit here, I think. Ultimately Newsarama is a whole different beast to me than a blog. Maybe I’m committing the same sins I’m accusing others of engaging in with my own post, in trying to classify and parse the “standards” issue at all?

What I’m trying to say is this:

Journalism is DEAD, people. It’s dead all over the place. I think if we knew what kind of compromises went into creating the average Rolling Stone cover story, for example, we’d all be scared shitless. There is no such thing as “objectivity” anymore, except in tiny enclaves. Mainstream media is a giant money machine.

But hey, have a great night, everyone!

Maybe a little. Yeah, but some people have to keep other people happy if they’re going to pay the bills, and keep doing what they love to do. Maybe, we should all think about lightening up a bit. It’s art, and we should be enjoying it. Now, how about a hug.

For the record, it is depressing to listen to bright people worrying about whether or not they can keep DC and Marvel happy enough to maintain access to information. I don’t know how anybody could see it any other way. That shit is d.e.p.r.e.s.s.i.n.g.

And to that alertnerd guy-you’re goddamn right, nobody should be held to any standard of anything, it’s their blog. But for chrissakes man, wasn’t the thing called a “criticism/journalism” panel? Talking about pr releases and promotional shit is neither.

I’d happily be proven wrong.

I think so. More than anyone/any site/any publication I can think of, anyway. I think Rich Johnston may “break” more stories than Spurgeon does (at least Marvel/DC/super related), but give the nature of his breaks–i.e. not sourced–they always have to be taken with a grain of salt. So they tend to be like, “Woah, that’s big!…if it turns out to be true. I guess we’ll know in a few days/weeks/months.”

Nope. I’ll give it a try now, though. Thanks for the recommendation.

That British fellow who runs the Lying in the Gutters column — to an extent, what he does looks like independent and investigative journalism. I’ve not read him a lot — so someone can correct me if he’s wrong most of the time — but he seems to carefully flag the information he’s not sure about, as well as the information he is sure about. On a few occasions, I’ve seen him announce something there that the other comics blogs confirmed days or weeks later, once the companies were prepared to announce it their way.

And just what is news? To some people, it might just be basic stuff like when a new title coming out? Who is the creative team? What’s the basic plotline? What’s the format? Things like that.

Other things, like personnel changes, are more problematic. Private companies are not obligated to provide such information, but in an industry that has “fans,” sometimes such personnel changes have to be reported.

But is gossip and speculation really news? And where does one draw the line? For, while it may be pertinent to report that Joan Sixpack left Marvel to work at DC, is it pertinent to report that Joan just got divorced, is in rehab, or got a facelift? In the comics business, the latter info is generally off limits, but it certainly isn’t off limits to film industry fans.

Personally, I think what’s reported by comic book journalists is done fairly well. And I think the reason there is not much “hard-hitting, investigative reporting” in the comic book business is because there isn’t a whole lot happening in the business to warrant such explosive reporting. Face it… personnel changes at some comic book company ain’t exactly Watergate-type stuff.

I’d happily be proven wrong.

You do read Tom Spurgeon’s Comicsreporter.com, don’t you? If The Beat and Journalista are more personality-driven–and as link-blogs more than straight up news sources, there’s nothing wrong with that–Comicsreporter is probably the best thing the industry has in terms of journalism-journalism.

“So quit bitching about the “standards” of a blogger, comics or otherwise, because there are none, and there shouldn’t be.”

just ignores the whole part where the blogger pretends to be a journalist, as Matt Brady does. Just listening to him discuss the Siegel/Superman case and how today there would be “repercussions” and “spankings” is sort of nauseating. He seems to be saying he would be afraid to run that story today, no? Or that he would only run with the permission of DC?