On ‘on background’

November 10, 2021 8:34 PM

Updating The Verge’s background policy "The Verge is updating our public ethics policy to be clearer in our interactions with public relations and corporate communications professionals. We’re doing this because big tech companies in particular have hired a dizzying array of communications staff who routinely push the boundaries of acceptable sourcing in an effort to deflect accountability, pass the burden of truth to the media, and generally control the narratives around the companies they work for while being annoying as hell to deal with." Includes a number of real-life examples of tech company PR shenanigans.
posted by mosessis (23 comments total)

Good for them.
posted by ®@ at 9:01 PM on November 10, 2021 [2 favorites]

This is good, and hopefully represents the beginning of a shift away from this nonsense 'everything is on background' approach across more than just the tech industry's PR.
posted by axiom at 9:26 PM on November 10, 2021 [8 favorites]

I follow a bunch of games reporters on Twitter, and they're understandably excited by this, and I do hope more games journalism sites follow with similar policies. But I'd also like to see a lot of these sites reexamine the whole idea that "access" is, in and of itself, worth preserving, and worth compromising yourself for. You're never going to beat the streamers for pure access, because they are almost universally willing to sell their credibility to the highest bidder without a blink. The gaming press ought to embrace the old Deadspin motto - "without access, favor, or discretion". Access is almost always a poison pill for credibility. It doesn't actually provide much value, because 99% of it is PR flacks who are going to try to spin or lie to you because it's literally their job to do so.
posted by protocoach at 10:56 PM on November 10, 2021 [21 favorites]

With examples that include "[a] food delivery company", "[a] large recruiting company", "[a] major car company", and "[a] major delivery company", I'm not quite sure what "tech company" means any more.
posted by eruonna at 11:02 PM on November 10, 2021 [7 favorites]

I think at this point it means "has an app" and "uses VC money to push companies who actually have to make money out of the marketplace."
posted by dominik at 12:22 AM on November 11, 2021 [15 favorites]

Yes this is cool. I was postulatizing that this is EXCELLENT timing where there's a bit of a vacuum in the publishing media-dependent landscape with FB in a bit of a jumble and seemingly unfocused, government malfeasants getting roped up, and some huge investigative spotlights published over a recent-memory extended period. The Travis Scott shitshow. There are a LOT of people who are needing to get their words out and on paper (the royal "paper"), and the Verge has the readership to be able to demand it. I set an alarm to remind me in a year to look back and see if they've been able to turn the screws successfully. Hello, future rhizome. Happy Friday!.
posted by rhizome at 1:03 AM on November 11, 2021 [4 favorites]

Aren't most Vox media outlets reporting the PR releases of companies advertising through them?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:09 AM on November 11, 2021

Recent Ben Smith NYT column: Learning to Live With Mark Zuckerberg -- Journalists and tech executives seem to be fighting each other to a draw in a battle that has no end in sight.

After Mark Zuckerberg announced, in a goofy video on Thursday, that he was changing his company’s name to Meta and shifting its focus to the creation of a digital space called the metaverse, he granted interviews to just four media outlets, including exactly zero of the great American legacy publications.

For the outlets receiving a golden ticket, it was a big get. It was also a little embarrassing: What did you do to ingratiate yourself to one of journalism’s biggest targets, just as your competitors were feasting on a leak of thousands of internal company documents?

Only one outlet with access to the Facebook documents — the tech site The Verge — got an interview with Zuck. The other three were The Information, a tech news site, and a pair of relatively sympathetic newsletter-ers, Ben Thompson and Dylan Byers.

The message of this short list was clear: Silicon Valley doesn’t really need East Coast media anymore.

posted by gwint at 6:29 AM on November 11, 2021 [1 favorite]

Note: The Information is also a paid subscription newsletter.
posted by ryanrs at 6:47 AM on November 11, 2021

According to a source familiar with the situation, this seems like it must be exhausting for journalists.
posted by adamrice at 7:12 AM on November 11, 2021 [6 favorites]

"• A big tech company insisted on describing the upgrade requirements for its new operating system on background. Details which it then repeatedly changed… on background."

"• A major car company’s head of communications told us an April Fools’ joke was actually real on background. The joke was not real."

I assume these are Microsoft (Windows 11) and VW ("Voltswagen")
posted by BungaDunga at 7:19 AM on November 11, 2021 [2 favorites]

This is great. The examples are hilarious and totally believable. I don't know how much impact it will have: the core problem remains underpaid journalists needing to produce content for unprofitable media will have a hard time turning down sources.

Some PR people worked as or studied journalism. Certainly they know the "rules" and how to use them. I'd seen a piece earlier on the flip side of this: Ordinary folk, not connected to the business, talk to reporters and don't understand all the conventions and end up feeling betrayed by what gets printed.

More broadly, I'm really convinced one problem with that hit journalism as it was professionalized is getting too steeped in internal rules. Other journalists read attributions like "person familiar with the situation" can from context often sort out what's going on because there's a sort of code, while the average reader--the very person they are supposed to serve--is confused by the language. Actually not even confused; misled. (See also: Publications which will never use the word "like" but think that's OK because "claimed without evidence" is plain speaking and brave.)
posted by mark k at 7:20 AM on November 11, 2021 [9 favorites]

Aren't most Vox media outlets reporting the PR releases of companies advertising through them?

I'm not sure what you're asking? Reporting on press releases is common practice; just because a company says it's newsworthy doesn't mean it's not.
posted by mark k at 7:24 AM on November 11, 2021

But I'd also like to see a lot of these sites reexamine the whole idea that "access" is, in and of itself, worth preserving, and worth compromising yourself for. You're never going to beat the streamers for pure access, because they are almost universally willing to sell their credibility to the highest bidder without a blink.

Yup.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:27 AM on November 11, 2021

> The message of this short list was clear: Silicon Valley doesn’t really need East Coast media anymore.

That's a misleading conclusion for the New York Times to make, considering how willingly they've been trading its credibility for access in political reporting.

The real problem seems to me that Facebook's leader now demands to be treated as a head of state.
posted by at by at 7:35 AM on November 11, 2021 [2 favorites]

With examples that include "[a] food delivery company", "[a] large recruiting company", "[a] major car company", and "[a] major delivery company", I'm not quite sure what "tech company" means any more.

posted by eruonna

I think at this point it means "has an app" and "uses VC money to push companies who actually have to make money out of the marketplace."
posted by dominik

To expand on this, some examples I can think of include Doordash, Monster or Indeed, maybe Tesla or one of the new electric vehicle startups?, and Amazon.
posted by eviemath at 8:07 AM on November 11, 2021

I'm not sure what you're asking?

Speaking as someone who did music journalism for some years, the main business model of these publications and their parent company is based on being effectively promotion for whatever products are being released at a given point in time: cell phones, food delivery services, movies, TV shows, music, video games -- whatever. It seems largely besides the point whether sources are attributed to a human being or not, when most pieces are already more advertisement than journalism. Particularly so for tech-focused media outlets, whose reporting it is fair to say often falls to being thinly-veiled product announcements.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:09 PM on November 11, 2021 [1 favorite]

There seems to be a resistance to absorbing the last 25 years of online-oriented (or -capable) companies into the traditional business discourse.
posted by rhizome at 5:17 PM on November 11, 2021

my personal favorite is the phrasing "according to two people with knowledge of [x] who aren't authorized to speak about [x] because [x] hasn't been made public yet"

I blame Bloomberg news, which for years wouldn't let reporters publish stories without named attribution, but then caved into these euphemisms which then spread everywhere.
posted by chavenet at 1:27 AM on November 12, 2021

This is really interesting. I haven't heard the phrase 'on background' before, but based on the New York Times description, I'd call it (pejoratively) 'leaking', which can be done both without the knowledge of the organisation/politician and with their consent. Much of the political shenanigans reported in the UK comes from leaks, probably due to the nature of the Westminster system and the party whips. I haven't noticed in corporate stuff, but it's interesting that it's become a way of life for the tech companies. Once it's in the culture of a sector though, it will be expected by everyone, including senior management. And there's no external backup for a PR person who wants to operate differently.
posted by plonkee at 1:49 AM on November 12, 2021

On background is not leaking. Typically "on background" would be trotted out for something like a major government policy announcement. The politician will be the person officially quoted. A civil servant who worked to draft the actual policy will also be available "on background" to explain the finer points and details about the policy to reporters who are familiar with the topic and who want to understand the nitty gritty details. (General assignment reporters may or may not care to take advantage of these kinds of briefings because their audience doesn't care, or their deadlines may not provide them with time to get deeper briefings.)

I'm not saying the definition linked to above is wrong, but it's unclear and misleading. Sure, sometimes on background could involve leaking, but those are the minority of cases.

Here's a really innocuous example of how on background can be used. A relative of mine passed away recently. One of his immediate family members was working with a newspaper's obituary writer, as my relative had a bit of local notoriety, and the paper wanted to profile him. My (still living) relative didn't want to be quoted in the article, but she did want to ensure the facts about her family member were accurate, so I told her to tell the reporter upfront everything she was sharing was on background. All she provided was basic biographical information: where he worked, what his interests were, etc. but it was still vital information to the writer's piece. (Personally, I would have declined to even talk to the writer because I think she's a terrible writer and I could see the hatchet job coming a mile away, just based on the type of character my deceased relative was and the type of articles the writer typically produces. But I also suspect it will be the type of hatchet job that will do well come awards season.)
posted by sardonyx at 9:06 PM on November 13, 2021 [1 favorite]

There was the ridiculous instance of Trump decrying "phoney" stories and claiming that the anonymous sources had been fabricated by the fake news media.

The anonymous source was a White House official who briefed the media on background.
posted by BungaDunga at 3:36 PM on November 14, 2021 [2 favorites]

It's a sign of how invested Politico is in the self-imposed rules that they didn't actually name the person who briefed them on background. With no names it's still he-said, she-said; for the skeptic the official can remain the Canadian girlfriend of sources. Writing plainly in the first paragraph something like The briefing was in fact given in the Pentagon press room by Lt. Colonel Roger Glipgorp, attached to the Command for North Korean Affairs, on October 19 would be so much more compelling.

I saw a New Yorker writer who'd given her fawning coverage later burned Elizabeth Holmes for off-the-record lies, even releasing a tape. It does happen. But only for people who are already weak and powerless.
posted by mark k at 3:57 PM on November 15, 2021