Hewlett Packard spies on journalists

According to the New York Times today (their story here) in the process of investigating an alleged information leak the board of directors of Hewlett Packard engaged a detective who spied on not only a board member, but on a number of journalists who follow the company. Unfortunately, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise. The relationships between corporations and the financial analysts and reporters who follow them have been growing increasingly strained, especially in the last year or so.

This is the first time I’ve heard of actual spying. But it’s just another step down a very bad path. Relationships between journalists and corporate executives have always had a bit of an edge to them. Generally it surfaces as good-natured public criticism. But in an age when executives seem to feel that it’s the responsibility of the press and analyst communities to amplify corporate messages, that relationship can turn darker.

The most common weapon is denial of access. If you don’t like what an analyst says, you simply stop letting her into briefings and conference calls, supposedly making it hard for her to do her job. Of course a good analyst or reporter will cultivate sources, so she won’t be dependent on just writing down what was said at the press/analyst breakfast. Now, apparently, if that reporting becomes a problem you can simply have a detective investigate the reporter, and see if she gets the message.

Clearly these tactics extend corporate influence over what investors can read about them, potentially harming shareholders. But do they have implications for the technology press as well? Unfortunately, yes.

Technology stories often come from the same sort of reporter-company relationships as do financial stories. And companies can be just as cranky about how their product announcements are covered as they can be about reports on their earnings outlook. In the past technology companies have complained to editors and publishers about coverage, and have withdrawn advertising from publications in retaliation for what they felt were unfavorable articles. Fortunately, the leading publications in our industry have been remarkably resistant to such pressure, even in these thin days for the publishing industry.

If the growing hardball tactics usedon the financial press continue, it is likely they will spill over onto the technology press as well. The reason, simply, is the Internet. There are no information silos any more. What we write for engineers is also picked up by analysts and investors. Honest technology reporting about a new product, especially if it’s misunderstood by non-technical financial folk or investors, could significantly impact a company’s stock price. Hence, I would not be surprised to hear at some point that some company is trying to get a technology journalist’s phone records to see how they found out about a product slip, a design problem, or whatever.

By denying free flow of information and protecting misrepresentation, and hence interfering with a free market, such tactics harm a vendor’s prospective customers. By creating the appearance of something that must be hidden, the vendor harms itself. These issues are serious, yet they pale in comparison to the damage when such tactics are executed by members of government against news reporters. But that is a matter for a different venue.