Journalism needs genuine expertise
Journalism has received its fair share of criticism in recent years. Some of it is warranted. Some of it is merely the petulant writhes of powerful people being confronted with truths they would rather deny.
Elon Musk has certainly expressed his views in any case. And, here, he might just have a point.
Whether you love or loathe the corporate media, most people would agree that it is always better for it to be well informed, empirically driven, and based on an accepted form of expertise. This expertise can be from years of experience, academic qualifications, or, ideally, a mix of both. Op-eds gussied up as analysis are much less desirable.
Herein lies a problem: People with wafer thin knowledge of an carrying themselves off as experts. Not all journalists do this. And many “experts” are agenda-driven. But, what is clear is that someone who barely scraped through an undergraduate degree in socialist studies should not be haranguing people about how to run the financial system.
Some media outlets seem content to make this problem worse. Some media outlets feel at liberty to exploit ‘experts’. And, some outlets have taken this far too far. Forbes Australia is one of those outlets.
How experts engage with the media
Experts often engage with the media pro bono. Experts provide comments to journalists, or are interviewed on television and radio. Experts are rarely – if ever – paid for these interactions.
Pro bono interactions come with the territory. It is part of being a good citizen and is the duty of people who have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to amass skills and knowledge.
Many media outlets are incredibly thankful and appreciative, give great exposure, or have absolutely amazing editing. Many media outlets treat ‘experts’ as humans who might have other family or work priorities. Indeed, anyone who has written for The Conversation knows just how brilliant are their editors: The conversation can transform even my tired prose into a masterpiece. Anyone who has been on Ausbiz knows how efficiently it is conducted and how genuinely enjoyable the experience is.
The problem with Forbes
Forbes, however, marches to its own tune.
Forbes Australia explicitly states that it will not pay expert contributors but that it will pay freelancers. This is ‘taking the piss’, so to speak. And, it is extremely weird.
It seems that Forbes will not people who have expert value to add. The aforementioned person with a BA in Socialism can be paid. But, should you have a PhD in finance or be a successful portfolio manager, you cannot. It is counter-intuitive. This is especially stupid since genuine experts can amass a personal following and drive traffic to the site.
Forbes’s actions might be fine if they provided good exposure or they were a non-profit or served some other good. But, Forbes is not a non-profit. It is not a charity. It is not a public service. It is a major corporate multinational.
Forbe’s issues compound, unfortunately. Forbes provides terrible exposure. They provide a tiny byline that is dwarfed by their gaudy advertisements. This compares unfavorably with outlets such as The Australian or AFR. Colloquially, Forbes is taking the piss.
And Forbe’s approach is not just for op-eds. Forbes seemingly does not pay for expert analysis. They simply do not pay contributors. Full stop. And, in any case, if paid journalists are pumping out glorified op-eds, it is not clear why experts would not also be paid for doing the same.
Forbes carries themselves as if you should feel honoured to write for them. Indeed, writing for a brand name is nice. But, if it’s unpaid and you just want to inform people, then substack and twitter are better. Substack can be free to everyone (or quasi-paywalled if you choose). By contrast, Forbes limits the number of free articles you can read. Ironically, it is actually a worse platform through which to impart knowledge than others.
This is bad for journalism
Forbe’s approach is awful for journalism. It normalizes exploiting experts. It normalizes valuing expertise at $0. This is pernicious. And, again, Forbes is not a charity or a public services. Forbes is a major multinational that has commercial imperatives.
The ramifications are severalfold:
* Experts are significantly better off writing for their own corporate wing or their own Substack. Why give Forbes copy, when you can give it to your own organization and potentially please your boss? Why let Forbes cultivate an audience when you can do so yourself on Substack or Twitter? Indeed, sharing an article from your substack or your own company is no worse regarded than one in Forbes.
* This will leave Forbes with activists as experts will become tired of such exploitative arrangements. It is almost as if Elon Musk might be right in some of his criticism.
* The experts that are left publishing on Forbes are doing so either because they have an axe to grind or because they are promoting some other corporate action. A website full of corporate puff pieces hardly screams credibility. Filling a ‘news’ outlet with glorified advertorials does not do the audience any favours, renders the site no better than a tiktok finfluencers, undermines the site’s purported brand.
Ultimately, outlets such as Forbes should consider how bad are their arrangements. They should treat experts as being at least as good as non-expert Freelancers. Failure to do so is a slap in the face of precisely the type of people we should want to write for these outlets.
