Pitchfork's Apparent Conflict of Interest

Well, I really have to ask. First of all, thanks so much for the review. I was really very flattered about that. You know, I heard something about the "8.0 club" a long time ago. Oh You're So Silent got 8.6. Everyone kept telling me, "Oh, you're in the 8.0 club now," which was kind of intriguing to me because it literally means that all these festivals and all these distributors want to have your record. It sort of puts wheels in motion.

And then when I got this review [for Night Falls over Kortedala], I was like, "9.0? I wonder what that means." The day after, my frequent flyer card was updated from ivory to silver. I just wanted to check if you had something to do with that. I was thinking, "Oh, the 9.0 club"

                                —Jens Lekman, in an interview with Pitchfork

In regards to this interview with Pitchfork's Ryan Schreiber, in which Jim DeRogatis gives Schrieber a light grilling on the appearance of a conflict of interest between Pitchfork's role as a critical entity and their slew of commercial endeavors—web tv, video game soundtracks, concert promotion—Dan Weiss over at Kiss Out the Jams sums things up nicely:

It doesn't help that a lot of Schreiber's answers are "I don't know."

Whether or not their is a conflict of interest could be debatable, but as DeRogatis notes,

[O]ne of the things that you study in ethics class at journalism school is avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest, which is different than actually having a conflict of interest. If I had written an authorized biography of the Flaming Lips, readers might question, “How do I know you really did the reporting and told us everything there is to know about this band—the good, the bad and the ugly—if you were financial partners with them and they were making a dollar from every book sold?” People have the right to ask that question.

Schreiber is able to duck the question, to a degree, because the main subject at hand—pitchfork.tv—is not the grossest example. Schreiber sees the upcoming video site as "a logical extension of the kind of journalism and features that we already do. It’s just a different format." There's no real quibbling with that, for the moment, since the site hasn't even launched. There's no reason to think a video-based ad-supported music site is entirely different from the current format.  One could raise the question of who's paying who to get the content on the site, but frankly I'm not that cynical—and judging by all those I don't knows, neither is Schreiber.

The video game soundtrack and the concert festival, however, seem a little more smarmy. When Pitchfork gives a band a great review and that band's cachet increases, to the point that Pitchfork then turns around and makes money off that band—not through ads supporting the Pitchfork brand, but through video game royalties or ticket sales based on the band's popularity, which Pitchfork had a hand in creating—that is what DeRogatis correctly points to as the appearance of a conflict of interest.

From Schreiber's point of view, it seems to be simple: they like the band first, therefore everything after is kosher.  I'm not completely sure it's that easy. Turning to a parallel critical avenue, Tyler Green at Modern Art Notes interviewed the Village Voice's art critic, Christian Viveros-Faune, a few months back. Viveros-Faune had a similar I don't know sort of attitude.

MAN: You're a managing director of a commercial art fair, Volta, and an organizer of another commercial art fair, Chicago's Next fair. At the same time you're a writer, a journalist, you're the art critic for the Village Voice. Why isn't that the most basic kind of conflict of interest?

Christian Viveros-Faune: I think essentially, because, I believe you can wear a lot of hats in the art world, and one needs to because, among other things, critics can't survive on the money that they make from writing. Very few critics can. And, not only that, but I'm interested in curating, and I firmly believe that there is no interest in the art world without a conflict of interest.

...

Can I curate an exhibition as an art fair for a company that will pay me money for it? You're damned right I can. Do I see a conflict there? No I don't, I see potential for a conflict, which is not the same thing. It's the same dilemma I have every day when I decide not take candy from a baby. One it's easier than it looks, and two it's just not done, it's unethical and uncivil. Decent, cool people don't do it, and that's that.

...

MAN: Have you considered what it says about you, about the Voice, about the state of the art world when someone holding one of the three major critical positions in New York City has hands in two different pots, both trying to be a journalist, to be a critic, while operating in the commercial side as well?

Viveros-Faune: Honestly, I thought it basically came with the territory. It's either that [conflict] or teaching. We're not nuns here.... I don't write about the market. Also, in case anyone has missed this detail: I no longer sell art work to anyone, which in my mind takes me out of the area of real conflict, period.

Within days, Viveros-Faune was fired from the Voice. From the Voice's official statement:

Christian assures us that the consulting work he is doing for those fairs does not conflict with anything he has written for us or would write in the future, and he has demonstrated to us that besides being an excellent and highly readable critic, he’s also a man of integrity. But we’re concerned that his work outside the Voice at least creates an appearance of conflict.

So how different is it when Pitchfork reviews bands on a daily basis and is promoting mega-festivals and having a hand in licensing songs for video games? When it comes to Pitchfork's various commercial endeavors, maybe there's not a conflict—in fact I really believe that Schreiber never considered it, because he just digs the bands so damn much.  But there is an appearance, and one that Schreiber would do well to address and stop I don't knowing about.

[Update: all of a day later I had to change the awkward title of this post. Also, I hope you're reading the comments.]

Comments

[Catbird]

The conceit here is that Pitchfork is some sort of bastion of music criticism, which I really don't believe is the case anymore. I would argue that those 5 static reviews in the middle of the page are far less important to Pitchfork's overall health than are those constantly-updated news and Forkcast items. Long-form reviews and well-written essays are no way to run a business, just ask Nick Denton (or the Stylus guys). On today's web, the name of the game is rapidly-updated, constantly incoming, easily-digested content (and Pitchfork.tv will be a good extension of this model).

Do those Pitchfork review's numerical grades have influence? Yes, but it's not from some totally unbiased, professionally-critical angle that they're coming from. Heck, they could probably start limiting reviews to a sentence or two, and as long as they left the numbers for people to quickly digest, Pitchfork would probably exert about the exact same influence that they have now. In fact, if they did that, and doubled or tripled their number of reviews, and spaced out them through the day, they would probably get *even better* traffic.

Also, that idea that they are very selective about what content to feature is a bit of a stretch, too. Again, they would be limiting the potential amount of content they could push out each day. Covering (via reviews, features, news, or Forkcast) practically all bands, rated 0.0 to 10.0, simply because they're somehow related to "indie" is not "being selective." Opting not to cover James Blunt or Miley Cyrus or Sean Kingston is not "being selective." Being selective is no way to run a business; throwing out as much content as possible, and letting the users be selective about that-- that's the way you do it.

And folks, I'm not doing any kind of Pitchfork hating here, I'm just trying to say that I think that the whole debate about Pitchfork's "appearance of conflict" is built on a shaky premise. I mean, remember when Professional Wresting became "Wresting Entertainment?" Pitchfork, Stereogum, Idolator, most music blogs... they're really just "Indie Music Entertainment" -- and there's nothing wrong with that. But let's call a spade a spade.

[MA]

The problem I really have with just calling it "entertainment" is that in the process of entertaining they do have an impact on these bands careers and the lives of everyone associated with those careers. These are not big bands, these are outfits who could be seriously hurt by a scarring review or being kept off of that webtv channel. You're right, Pfork is not the bastion of music criticism anymore but they certainly do have all of the promotional power of a bastion. I do think they fucked themselves over by expanding in many different eras to an effect of spreading themselves thin AND making them appear to have a conflict of interest.

On a side note: I'm glad DeRo gave him a light grilling, Pitchfork has expanded to a point where they deserved it.

[scott pgwp]

Catbird, you bring up good points, some of which I thought about while writing but just didn't want to get into one of my multi-part posts.

The common argument I've seen in the last couple days against this potential conflict of interest is that the reviews are allegedly the least important part of the site, aside from their numbers, and that in fact the news, features, and forkcast are really what pulls the traffic.

Think about that: there's no conflict of interest because most people read the NEWS? Hello--last time I heard, reporting news was where the conflict of interest lies in journalistic ethics.

Okay, granted, what passes for "news" at Pitchfork is no more than regurgitated press releases, no better than Brooklyn Vegan or whatever. Then again, a few years ago, prior to their expansion to ongoing daily content (remember when they only posted once a day?), their news section was slimmer on entries but more robust on actual reporting. I remember actually going to Pitchfork when I heard Elliott Smith killed himself - I knew they'd give me the news faster and better than anyone else.

Not so anymore. Now they just get a press release with track lists and tour dates and post them.

It says something that the editorial slant of their news side was diluted by their expansion a few years ago, and it doesn't negate the fact that by simply pimping albums and bands that there is any less potential conflict.

The larger conversation, which you allude to, is whether Pitchfork is any different from Stereogum, Idolator, or other (mere) music blogs. I'd say they are.

[Catbird]

Scott: Pitchfork IS, yes, different from those others (exclude "mere blogs" for the moment), but the way in which they are the same is that there is one bottom line for all those, and it's not journalistic integrity, or impartiality, etc., it's Pageviews/Traffic/Revenue (again, please don't think I'm criticizing this, I'm not-- I'm just pointing it out.) A bunch of kids in a Chicago basement in 1999 don't have to worry about that stuff so much. A for-profit business with X employees and X million pageviews every month does.

[scott pgwp]

If these blogs have in common a lack of journalistic integrity and a desire for high traffic numbers, then what is it exactly that sets Pitchfork apart? I ask that seriously, not rhetorically.

You seem to be saying that since Pitchfork is a bona fide business, it therefore doesn't need to have journalistic integrity. But isn't its whole reputation based on some degree of credibility? Schreiber seems to think so in the interview linked above. He is obviously under the impression that his site has some form of integrity.

The reality may be that Pitchfork has evolved from a site full of writers with discerning ears to something of a rubber stamp, and trusted brand rather than a trusted voice.

If that's the case--if there is no conflict of interest because Pitchfork is merely a succesful indie rock public relations conduit--then you're right: we should call a spade a spade, and Pitchfork's influence should (ideally) dissipate as we turn to discerning voices that are not influenced by their hit counts, but rather by their taste in music.

[Catbird]

Hm, my response to you is 'yes, but not exactly..."

What sets them apart? I dunno... is it that they were in the space first? That they've got seniority, and thus, more cachet? That they still actually publish long-form reviews? The reviews thing is definitely a set-aparter, and one that allows them a larger audience of die-hard old-school sorta music nerds, the sort of which scoff at the very notion of Stereogum. But I suppose I do think of all of today's big (indie) music sites as all sort of variations on the same flavor. And you could say the same thing about (most) all of the (mere) blogs: minor variations on one particular flavor.

As to your second statement, I am not saying that since Pitchfork is a bona fide business, it therefore doesn't need to have journalistic integrity... I am saying that since Pitchfork is a bona fide for-profit indie music WEB SITE it doesn't necessarily need to be held to the same journalistic standards as the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. I would say it has more in common with something like an Entertainment Weekly, or an US Magazine.

To your third statement,

"The reality may be that Pitchfork has evolved from a site full of writers with discerning ears to something of a rubber stamp, and trusted brand rather than a trusted voice."

I say ABSOLUTELY. And that's an impressive feat that they've been able to do that.

(And I just want to point out, re: Ryan: he really is very much that guileless, "gee-whiz-I-just-like-the-music," totally genuine guy that comes across in that interview.)

[scott pgwp]

I'm enjoying this. Hopefully others will pipe up in addition to the three of us.

For the record, I don't mean to come across as a Pitchfork hater--it's easy to pile on and I don't mean to come off that way. I've never met Schreiber but I do believe, based on that interview, that his intentions are good. Nevertheless, Pitchfork is the BMOC and it's important to consider just what they are, what they do, who they effect, and how. They are seriously rocking the 90s-style corporate synergy right now - very Oprah/Martha - so it's a worthy conversation to have. Hopefully more people, here or elsewhere, will keep it up.

[JJ]

"I am saying that since Pitchfork is a bona fide for-profit indie music WEB SITE it doesn't necessarily need to be held to the same journalistic standards as the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. I would say it has more in common with something like an Entertainment Weekly, or an US Magazine."

A "maybe" for the EW comparison and a "dear God I hope now" for the Us. Yet I'd say that EW has more news and feature chops than Pitchfork and generally try to live up to some level of journalistic integrity. Then again, EW has maintained a position where they are just journalists, feature writers, and critics. They don't have a niche market where they would have as much of an impact as Pitchfork does. That's more of what is at issue since Pitchfork has positioned themselves to be a critical voice but are also promoting via the festival and the game soundtracks? Something about that just doesn't smell right. As for the "gee whiz" attitude Ryan has.....that's all fine and good until something gets really fucked. "But I really, really mean it!" isn't good enough when you grow in the way Pitchfork has.

[JJ]

edit: I meant "dear God I hope not"

[wifey]

Ryan's intentions aside, sometimes it doesn't matter what the intentions are if the world perceives your intentions as otherwise. (eg - i don't think I'm a jerk, but people think I'm a jerk, so maybe I should step back to consider what it is I'm doing to lead people to believe that I am a jerk rather than just blow you off and go on my merry way alienating people....)

I would argue that most people who read Pitchfork consider their opinion to be that of a critical authority and a reliable/trusted news source, and probably don't really know how much money they are generating or could stand to generate from their extra-critical activities, if they even know about them. Even someone like Maxim (not quite known for their journalistic integrity) can get in trouble for misusing what minor critical voice they have; I am certain more people weigh Pitchfork's opinions before they plunk down cash to purchase a CD or concert ticket. I think you bloggers are so in it sometimes that you can't see that people these days will often believe anything they read, even if it's on a screen, and these are the moments where the ideals and morals of this medium are being defined - Pitchfork should accept the responsibility that comes with having a loud voice.

[scott pgwp]

I am not saying that since Pitchfork is a bona fide business, it therefore doesn't need to have journalistic integrity... I am saying that since Pitchfork is a bona fide for-profit indie music WEB SITE it doesn't necessarily need to be held to the same journalistic standards as the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. I would say it has more in common with something like an Entertainment Weekly, or an US Magazine.

I don't really get the distinction. I don't see why Pitchfork would be exempt from journalistic ethics just because they're a website. Would you say the same for Slate? Or the AV Club? Pitchfork writes features, reports news, conducts interviews, writes reviews - in short, they are magazine.

If EW or Us Weekly started branding movies or became involved in casting decisions for tv shows or commercials or even videogame voiceovers, plenty of red flags would go up. And, as my dear wife has pointed out, even a joke of a magazine like Maxim gets its feet held to the fire.

[Catbird]

Points taken, though I do want to say that I never used the word 'exempt...'

[zh]

That was a very interesting article! Schreiber comes off as this real ingenue who honestly never thought about conflict of interest. I don't know anything about him; I never read pfork; and the idea of being led around by the nose like that (if pfork likes it, I must too -- and the reverse --) is sort of repugnant to me. But I do understand tangentially that many folks flock over there to note an album's position in its arbitrary rating system and base their purchases thereon. With that kind of power comes ... great responsibility? It's a crazy world we live in.

In Schreiber's defense, it's ludicrous to think of any reporting site as unbiased and without agenda. A knowledgeable listener would decide for him or herself whether the music was good, whether pfork brand-stamped it GRADE A or not, right?

*crickets*

But the power issue is definitely there, and I suppose Pfork has the option to crush a band they don't like, i.e., "... if there’s something that we actively dislike, it’s probably not going to show up on Pitchfork.tv." This all depends of course on a) how popular pfork tv actually turns out to be and b) the so-called integrity that these people can hold on to while they're making money hand over fist.

*goes back to tiny, not-for-profit website and sobs about not making money hand over fist.*

[Richard]

I'm about one degree of separation from Ryan Schreiber, and from what I've heard, he's really nice, loves music, and so on, but things just don't occur to him. I imagine a guy who can't believe his good luck/fortune, giddy at his success, who would love to share the wealth, so to speak. But, I mean, of course there's an implicit conflict of interest in the expansion of Pitchfork's media "empire". That it doesn't occur to him that there might be one is symptomatic of much else. A lot of people have come to simply expect that media simply must be involved in every aspect of it (that's how you "run" a business; that you might better serve the music by not becoming a behemoth is not worth thinking about). Synergy has come to be expected. Ethics rarely if ever enter into it, or they are so circumscribed as to be barely worth having. I'm not saying that Schreiber or Pitchfork are doing anything evil or anything; it's just the innocence with which he appears to approach these matters, while not a pose at the moment, I don't think, can't be an excuse for much longer; people have brought it up before, he should be able by now to ask himself questions about it.

Anyway, for me, the only thing worth anything about Pitchfork has always been the reviews (though there's always been plenty of iffy-to-awful review-writing alongside the good stuff) and the longer form writing (such as Mark Richardson's consisently wonderful semi-regular Resonant Frequency column). The news gets traffic? That's just depressing, though I have no doubt it's true.

[Terrybv]

well done, man

[jakers]

okay, i had to lurk your blog for a bit before i felt comfortable contributing to the comment section here-- i happened across this entry while searching for some older Resonant Frequency posts. sorry.

while i am compelled to agree with the jabs made towards pfork as presented here, i would sooner digress from doing so. only having been familiar with that website(and music blogs in general) for about a year, i have found myself continually happy with the opportunity to be exposed to so much incredible content, most of which i'm certain i'd never come across on my own. while many of pfork's reviews seem more focused on idea(l)s of music than the actual sound of it, i still greatly enjoy reading that magazine's perspective.
but i've yet to buy any Animal Collective albums, much less Richard Villalobos, Santogold, Fennesz or Vampire Weekend.
i mean, c'mon. really.

feeling stung by a commercial entity's attempts to feed you a new brand of slop isn't neccesary. through the online medium(or your local library), it's entirely easy to get a taste of something without actually having to purchase squat. it's hard for me to see this as anything but golden.

don't be afraid to simply enjoy music, brother.
and if pfork's not giving your (newest favorite)record a glowing review, maybe the record company's not paying them enough.

--j.