Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin Media

A Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Media Outlets If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Advertising. More Than Half Said Yes. (breakermag.com) 63

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Corin Faife, writing for BreakerMag: The level of deception used was minimal: we created a fake email account, and claimed to be representing a PR company. There was no fake website or domain associated; it was simply a Gmail address with a profile picture found by image searching "Russian actor." Next we compiled a list of blockchain media sites. This was by no means exhaustive, but to have a sense of the scale of the problem, we needed numbers. All in all, we reached out to 28 sites, and received a yes/no reply from 22 by the time of publication, with two inconclusive. [...] Of the 22 outlets who replied conclusively, 12 of them -- more than half the total -- were willing to publish paid content without disclosing it as such.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Media Outlets If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Adver More

A Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Media Outlets If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Adver

Comments Filter:

  • Not even a link to the article?

    • It's in the little green link after the large title.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Looks like there's no link on the comment page here, but on the front page it's hidden behind the bitcoin icon.

      Cue "slashdot has gone to hell" ranting. :-P

  • "Blockchain media outlets" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Friday October 26, 2018 @10:51AM (#57539849)

    Is it any real surprise that a high percentage of blockchain sites are kind of shady?

    • Re:"Blockchain media outlets" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Friday October 26, 2018 @10:54AM (#57539875)
      Given the amount of schemes and scams surrounding crypto-currencies, I think the real surprise is that it's only ~50% of sites being willing to publish advertisements as content.

    • Re:"Blockchain media outlets" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HarrySquatter ( 1698416 ) on Friday October 26, 2018 @11:20AM (#57540017)

      Yes, I am thoroughly shocked that websites peddling monopoly money schemes on the public are shady! /s

      I was expecting this to be some sort of story involving media sites anyone has ever heard of like The Washington Post, the NYT, the NY Post, etc.. Instead it's mostly sketchy websites next-to-no-one has ever heard of full of ads and tracking scripts.

      • Yes, I am thoroughly shocked that websites peddling monopoly money schemes on the public are shady! /s

        I was expecting this to be some sort of story involving media sites anyone has ever heard of like The Washington Post, the NYT, the NY Post, etc.. Instead it's mostly sketchy websites next-to-no-one has ever heard of full of ads and tracking scripts.

        I was also taken in by the title. When I see an article about the media, I assume that they are talking about the well known media and social media organizations, not fly-by-night grey-market digital media sites that the average public never sees or cares about.

        • Many magazines are no better. I once wrote a review for a magazine. It was all organized by the product's PR company. I thought that was sketchy. Especially since I consulted for the company that I was reviewing.

          I was sure to disclose this to the Magazine's editor. "Hey, just so you know, the person that the PR company found to write a review of their product for you collects a paycheck from said company as well." The editor laughed and said it was fine. I drew the line in the sand at the point where the

    • Is it any real surprise that a high percentage of blockchain sites are kind of shady?

      Or that they wanted payment in hard currency not cryptocoins?

      • Well of course. They're not stupid. They know that 'fiat currency' (*rolls eyes and groans*) is the only money that matters. The monopoly tokens are just for fleecing the ignorant.

    • Is it any real surprise that a high percentage of blockchain sites are kind of shady?

      What?? The deuce, you say!

      Pyramid scheme fake currency sounds like reliable, non-shady stuff to me, thank you very much!

    • I never even heard of Blockcain media outlets? Let alone would I have any of those be considered a trusted new outlet.

      Anonymity and New Outlets do not mix. A new source can have a source which can remain anonymous, however the people in the media reporting it shouldn't be such, as their reputation should back up any anonymous source.

  • Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Friday October 26, 2018 @11:04AM (#57539929) Journal
    Headline: "Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Media Outlets If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Advertising. More Than Half Said Yes"

    Summary: "Next we compiled a list of blockchain media sites. This was by no means exhaustive, but to have a sense of the scale of the problem, we needed numbers. All in all, we reached out to 28 sites"

    I know it's trendy to accuse any news organization, publisher, studio, website, crazy-uncle's blog, or AM radio shack broadcaster as shady, untrustworthy, or otherwise peddling falsehoods.

    On the other hand, there's a BIG difference between "media outlets" and "blockchain media sites," (whatever the hell those are). The headline implies that some number of the big and names that one encounters on a day-to-day basis (the NYTimes, CNN, Fox News, CBS/NBC/ABC, WSJ, etc.) may be publishing paid content as their own. The reality of this news item is...far more underwhelming.

    Honestly, Slashdot Editor, this is sloppy work even by the usual low standards.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Wait... Are you tell me that blockchains are a scam???

      What about all my Dogecoins? Surely they are still worth something!

    • It is almost as if this story itself is "clickbait". Slashdot has fallen so low.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 26, 2018 @11:04AM (#57539933)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Misleading headline (Score:3)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday October 26, 2018 @11:06AM (#57539941) Journal

    The headline neglects to mention that these are blockchain media sites.

  • Some editors will substitue a blog post or news article with a properly written PR to save time on their end.

  • Fuck you Slashdot, seriously.

    Been reading for a long time, and every fucking time there's a good story about cryptocurrencies, or even specifically about Bitcoin, the story logo is always a Dollar bill or some other bullshit.

    When its some shady crap, you fuckers put the Bitcoin logo front and center, or if its about some aspect of the space involving scammers, con-men, etc...

    Just come out and say it. "Slashdot doesn't like Bitcoin, and here's the latest story on why you should keep things just as they are F

  • it was simply a Gmail address with a profile picture found by image searching "Russian actor."

    Zounds! Now even fake Russians are undermining the integrity of our ... er ... blockchain news blogs?

  • The other 50% were probably angling for a better price

  • These are simply blogs for Cryptocoins.

    Too bad. He should have tried this with Fox, Breitbart, Daily Stormer, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. and seen if a one of them would do that. I have my suspicions that several will, but few of us could afford it.

  • The Proper Headline (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Macdude ( 23507 ) on Friday October 26, 2018 @12:22PM (#57540483)

    A Reporter, Posing as Sketchy PR, Asked 28 Sketchy Bloggers If They'd Take Money To Publish Content Without Disclosing it Was Advertising. More Than Half Said Yes.

  • From TFA title:

    We Asked Crypto News Outlets If They’d Take Money to Cover a Project. More Than Half Said Yes

    (a) "Crypto News Outlets" is not really the same as "Media Outlets" -- to be fair though, TFS says "blockchain media sites".

    (b) Who cares? They're crypto / blockchain media outlets/sites -- whatever the hell *that* means.

    (c) See (b).

  • They had no problem outing the offenders, but where was the list of those who showed some integrity and shut that crap down? They make the point that the offenders were "used as trusted news sources", implying that they were doing a public service by outing those that shouldn't be trusted, but then they didn't bother to list those in whom such trust is well placed.

    The disparity in treatment almost makes seem like there was some other motive to this article besides objective journalism. Like this news outl
    • I must retract the above statement. They did list the good guys. It was one sentence near the end of the article with no other discussion so I over looked it. Mea culpa.

      Still, the statement starts with "Without dwelling wholly on the negative", when the fact is that this one sentence in the entire article is the only element that wasn't dwelling on the negative.
  • Reporter posing as sketchy PR guy asks sketchy sites to do sketchy things. Some say YES!

  • There isn't a single aspect of cryptos that isn't a scam.

  • all content on the various media outlets regardless of their media type is paid content. even intranetwork advertising is paid content. on tv there was just now a liberty mutual commercial and at no point did the network prefix it with "and now a paid content thing"

  • It seems like 50% of "blockchain" media outlets had journalistic integrity. I would call this a win.

Slashdot Top Deals

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Close