Gizmodo, The Tabloid of Gadget Blogs

Whether blogging is a form of journalism or not is a tricky and well documented topic, and one that, with the increased importance of the internet, continues to expand. Are bloggers like me journalists? How do you define a journalist? Is Gizmodo journalism? Over the last 2 days, Gizmodo has been basking in the light of its iPhone 4 exclusive, with images, video and reams of text on the subject. As I’m writing this, they have hit over 20,000,000 pageviews and is making Gizmodo a lot of money.

A piece over at The Guardian is asking whether, because the phone was ‘œfound’, is Gizmodo actually committing an offence by paying a source for it? The author says that Californian law states that for something to be stolen ‘œthe person who took the property must have intended permanently to deprive the owner of that property.’ Seems to me selling it to Gizmodo would be depriving Apple of the phone. A phone which Apple now wants back.

So what? Why is this a big deal? A blog, that isn’t The New York Times or The Guardian, bought a story; what’s the problem? The problem is that Gizmodo is one of the top gadget blogs on the internet and they essentially broke rule #1 of journalism: Don’t pay for sources.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), a group that aim to improve journalistic standards, released a statement over a case where the American news channel ABC paid $200,000 to an exclusive right to ‘œan extensive library of photos and home video’ of a murdered toddler. The SJP denounced this practice ‘œunethical’ and said that ‘œdoing so compromises the credibility of the news and the intentions of the reporters.’ They also said:

The SPJ Ethics Committee says news organizations that pay sources, for whatever reason, while covering them inject themselves in those stories and develop an “ownership” interest. The public can legitimately question a news organization’s credibility and doubt whether its reports are fair and accurate.

Now this might not matter if this was merely a small blog, but for it to be one of the largest internet blogs in the world? Surely we, as internet users, should demand that bloggers, be it journalists or not, adhere to literally the simplest ethical guidelines? Never mind that the fact that this could technically be stolen property, has the internet fallen so low that our leading websites are, essentially, tabloids?

Be it $5,000 or $1,000,000, buying news and sources is unethical. There’s no sugar coating it. The National Enquirer, in 2008 was speculated to be up for a Pulitzer Prize, (the most prestigious prize in journalism) for its coverage of the John Edwards sex scandal story, a paper which openly admits that it will pay sources for stories. The broadsheet press were outraged that such a tabloid newspaper could win a prize so highly held. Is Gizmodo the internet’s National Enquirer?

Going by their next post on the topic, it sure looks like it. Gizmodo then posted the name of the Apple employee who lost the phone, with pictures and Facebook details of the man. So not only have Gizmodo paid for a source (something that it has not yet mentioned in a post), they have, essentially, ruined the Apple employee’s life. For hits. Whenever he goes for a new job, employers will Google his name and immediately know that this is the man that lost the iPhone. It’s irresponsible reporting, it’s a dick move and frankly, Gizmodo and its employees should be ashamed of themselves.

If Gizmodo is a tabloid, (and by pulling this kind of stuff, they are) then they deserve to be treated with the same scepticism and disdain that we treat The National Enquirer or The Sun. If one of the largest, most popular publications on internet doesn’t adhere to simplest codes of ethics, then doesn’t that reduce the overall quality of internet journalism? Surely if we want to increase the relevance and quality of blogging (which we do) then we (and I mean bloggers) need to write by simple journalistic standards? How are we going to advance the medium of the internet if we have one of the largest blogging sites paying money for stories and basically smearing this man who (shock-fucking-horror) lost a mobile phone? Blogs are news sources and they carry as much, if not more weight than The New York Times or The Guardian and so have a responsibility to be ethical journalists.

Is Gizmodo paying for sources worth it? Nevermind the obvious monetary gain 20,000,000 hits brings; is it worth the integrity of our industry and our medium?