The Struggle Between Tech and Journalism

Welcome to the 34rd edition of The LogTech Letter, a weekly look at the impact technology is having on the world of global and domestic logistics. Last week, Brian Glick, CEO of Chain.io, took on the idea of logistics being too decentralized to control everything. This week, I’m digging into a subject very near and dear to me - the clash of tech and journalism and whether everyone is focused on the wrong problem.

As a reminder, this is the place to turn on Fridays for quick reflection on a dynamic, software category, or specific company that’s on my mind. You’ll also find a collection of links to stories, videos and podcasts from me, my colleagues at the Journal of Commerce, and other analysis I find interesting.

For those that don’t know me, I’m Eric Johnson, senior technology editor at the Journal of Commerce and JOC.com. I can be reached at eric.johnson@ihsmarkit.com or on Twitter at @LogTechEric.

There is a cottage industry in the tech community centered around being outraged that media companies try to be profitable as businesses. The argument, loosely, tends to be that the large corporate interests that own influential publications force news outlets to create narratives that support those corporations’ business interests. And that in striving for a healthy bottom line, those corporations force news outlets to abandon honorable journalistic principles.

I’m not going to wade too deep into why I think that’s incorrect, other than to point out a kink in these grand, imagined masterplans: most journalists don’t get paid a lot, and most care about their integrity more than anything else (or else they’d be doing something other than journalism and being paid better).

Why does this matter in the logistics industry? Well, one area that has dogged logistics journalism is the notion of pay-for-play editorial. Not every outlet does it. Some do it and segment it from their “normal” stream of content. Some delineate it even more clearly through an advertorial moniker like sponsored content, or partner content. For some publications, all their content is advertorial.

Again, why does this matter at all, and especially, why does it matter in a newsletter purportedly about logistics technology? Good question. I bring this up for two specific reasons. First, I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve seen Twitter thought leaders say that every company needs a media arm, or needs to invest in content. This idea seemed to reach a crescendo in January when Andreesen Horowitz started hiring for its in-house media arm, but it’s obviously wider in scope than that. Every company wants to control its narrative, and when the resources are there to do it, by all means. But let’s be clear: that’s marketing, not a replacement for journalism.

The second is that logistics technology has become an exceedingly blurry area in this tug of war between the broader tech world and journalism. That’s because logistics is a highly interconnected world. Shippers rely on logistics providers, shippers and logistics providers rely on carriers. They all rely on software providers. And the web is very tangled (part of what guest Brian Glick touched on last week).

This gets messy as media outlets report on companies with which they may have multi-tiered relationships. There has always been the tricky relationship of sponsorship or advertising to deal with in business journalism. It’s a reality that the companies a publication reports on will sometimes want to advertise or sponsor - it’s up to the editorial team to take a firm stand and say it will not be influenced by who is driving revenue.

But that’s the superficial tier of media-tech relationships, and fairly easy to navigate for a principled journalist. It gets trickier when news outlets, or individuals in power at news outlets, have secondary and tertiary relationships with companies they cover. And here is where the responsibility of being at a journalistic entity requires more discipline than other interconnected industries.

It’s the difference between being conflicted and biased. Journalists often get criticized for being biased, when the real problem is being conflicted. Bias is inherent and impossible to eradicate. What makes a journalist a professional is his or her ability to put those biases aside to do their jobs effectively.

But being conflicted is something that can be avoided. You can actively not be financially involved in the companies you cover. And even when the journalist knows in his or her heart that he or she has not been swayed by a conflict, there is always a perception in the reader’s mind that it has (if and when the reader becomes aware of the conflict).

Here’s where the idea of corporations (and let’s put this in a LogTech frame of reference) starting their own media companies gets tricky. Because it’s very likely that principles, or even reporters, at that company will have intertwined relationships that are, in fact, conflicts. And again, conflicts prevent a producer of content from being truly journalistic. The content may be interesting, or unique, or even highly valuable, but it’s not un-conflicted journalism.

For example, in the pure business world, you could potentially be a venture capital limited partner and an advisor to a startup. Or you could be a CEO, an angel investor, and an advisor to a startup. Or some combination of those types of roles - the permutations are many. It’s natural (and probably a good thing) to diversify in that way, and you can often justify those entanglements under the auspices of building an ecosystem of connected businesses.

In journalism, you can’t do that. Your personal and professional interests cannot intertwine in such a way, especially when those interests intersect with the industry you cover. Quite simply, credibility is your currency and any conflict erodes that stock of currency.

Journalism is a vocation that requires experience and doggedness. You can’t play journalist one day and dabble in something else the next. You can’t have a team of serious journalists headed by someone who literally doesn’t understand what being un-conflicted means. Ultimately, it’s the difference between content and journalism.

Here’s a roundup of pieces on JOC.com the past week from my colleagues and myself (note: there is a paywall):

• I first wrote about the global TMS provider Haven in 2016, and five years later, it has been acquired by visibility provider FourKites. So much to unpack here. First, FourKites and project44 continue their global visibility cage match. Second, it extends FourKites into the world of execution, and in the piece I address whether that impacts its existing relationships with TMS providers. Third, it speaks to the demands that venture capital places on both buyer and seller. Interested to hear your thoughts.

• More than half the container line members of the DCSA have, or will soon, implement the association’s track and trace standards. I expect the other members to see this as impetus to get on board as well.

• Bill Cassidy tackles autonomous truck maker TuSimple’s $1 billion IPO.

• Been writing about for a while about the trend of TMS providers acquiring parcel and last mile capability, and another instance of that happened this week. Cathy Roberson details MercuryGate’s acquisition of Cheetah. 

• More cash headed toward technology enabling US-Mexico cross-border trade, this time with broker Nuvocargo getting $12 million to continue to build out its platform.

And here are some recent discussions, reports, and analysis I found interesting:

• To continue the journalism/tech theme, this piece in the Atlantic on what digital journalism fails to get right is definitely worth a read.

• Gartner’s David Gonzalez does a good job of digging into the digital forwarder model here.

• An exploration here by Arviem of an interesting concept: “inventory-as-a-service” to combat severe disruption.

• The terminal operator DP World lays out its strategic vision for why it’s invested in technologies that traditionally an MTO would not be involved in.

• Freightos’ Eytan Buchman and MSC’s Andre Simha hardly need an intro to this audience, but in case you don’t know them, they’re having a chat Monday and it will undoubtedly be worth your time.

• Mr. Supply Chain himself, Daniel Stanton, opines on how to avoid letting supply chain visibility tools make your life harder.

• Need a primer on TMS? This is a good resource to start.

• Weekly moving update: still not moving to Florida or Texas.

• Keith Rabois is becoming increasingly boring so this will be a guest VC of the week slot now. This week, Mike Solana, who is right about so much, goes to the sunken place with this tweet.

  

Some upcoming events I’ll be involved in:

• I’ll be participating in Transporeon’s Visibility Day 2021 April 15, including moderating a panel with Coca Cola Europe and its logistics partner about the value it gets from real-time freight visibility.

• Registration is open for the IAPH World Ports Conference June 21-25. I’ll be involved in various technology-related elements of the program. MSC CEO Soren Toft and Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen will both speak. Don’t miss out!

• I spoke to Boris Felgendreher on his Logistics Tribe podcast about LogTech companies and categories that I’m excited about. This was a fun conversation.

  

Disclaimer: This newsletter is in no way affiliated with The Journal of Commerce or IHS Markit, and any opinions are mine only.