The Swarm

March 05, 2008

Ryan Schreiber talks Pitchfork.tv, video games, and music criticism: 'I have a lot of faith in our integrity'

TDS Editors

Pitchfork’s Ryan Schreiber, founder and sole proprietor of the self-described “world’s most trusted independent music publication,” is about to see his mini-media empire expand at the most rapid pace in its 12 year history. Hot on the heels of big dual announcements – the long-rumored launch of Pitchfork.tv and the company’s first foray into commercial music licensing (selecting part of the soundtrack for Take-Two Interactive’s Major League Baseball 2K8 video game) – and with the lineup announcement for this July’s Pitchfork Music Festival imminent, Schreiber sat for a lengthy interview with the Chicago Sun-Times’ Jim DeRogatis and spoke about the company’s past, present, and future.

The entire Q & A is well worth reading – especially for anyone with an interest in the future of music criticism and even the music business itself – and will likely be parsed, commented upon and assigned a numerical raking by many a blogger and new media pundit in the hours and days ahead, but one exchange in particular stands out:

Q. O.K. But what about the bigger business picture? Pitchfork just helped select the soundtrack for a baseball video game. It’s been very successful hosting a major music festival in Chicago for the last three summers. Now it’s rolling out Pitchfork.tv. Those things would all seem to be opposed to doing journalism and criticism, which is what the Web site has done for 12 years. All of those things may be smart moves for a record label in this new media age. But Pitchfork is an organ of journalism and criticism.

A. I think it would be a terrible idea for a record label!

Q. Really? It seems to me that those other businesses are all about presenting artists to the world, whereas journalism and criticism are about reporting on artists as opposed to championing them.

A. I think that what we’re doing is we’re documenting the artists. We generally go out and cover the things that we like and the artists that we think are doing very good things, and that’s a very, very broad number of artists. We have more than enough artists that we like that we’re not going to run into problems with that.

Q. Wait a minute, Ryan: Pitchfork has gotten to a position over the last 12 years where it has a lot of power now; I think you’re aware of that, and you and I have talked about that before. If Pitchfork champions a band, that 9.4 rating means something—it means a lot. Now, what band is going to deny you the right to videotape them and show that content for free on Pitchfork.tv if it’s worried about not getting a good review on the Web site? What band is going to say no to playing the festival, even if it has a better offer somewhere else, and what band is going to reject letting you include them on a videogame soundtrack?

A. I don’t know; I guess there are potential… You can see potential conflicts of interest in a lot of different things. Any time one kind of company starts another kind of company or something like that, there is always this sort of potential for it being a slippery slope. I mean, I have a lot of faith in our integrity to sort of not necessarily succumb to any of that kind of stuff. Like I always say, we’re very honest and straightforward about the way that we approach things, and we try to be very above the table about anything like that. I guess people can read into it… If you wanted to read into it like that, I supposed there are always things people could find…

Read the entire interview here.


Post a comment


31 Comments

#1 CL says:

"I mean, I have a lot of faith in our integrity to sort of not necessarily succumb to any of that kind of stuff."

you just keep telling yourself that Ryan. When the Feds come to get you for tax evasion or when it finally comes out that you guys pulled a Maxim at some point in this zine's career, or when Pitchfork becomes Rolling Stone (it's well on its way) this will be a fun interview to look back on.

#2 CL says:

Nice job to DeRo for really needling him.

#3 Andre says:

Good interview. It's very refreshing to see a journalist ask some tough follow-up questions. Those corporate lackies, by which I mean the mainstream political press, could learn a lot from this interview.

#4 DeRo Sux says:

I don't think Jim DeRogatis is one to be questioning people's ethics. Those that live in glass houses...

#5 Steven Patrick Morrissey says:

ryan, deal with it. you're slithering towards mainstream media. embrace it and move on. don't undermine people's intelligence by feigning to hold on some kind of "indie" mentality that really, upon close scrutinization, does not exist.

#6 CL says:

"DeRo Sux says:
I don't think Jim DeRogatis is one to be questioning people's ethics. Those that live in glass houses..."

One figure is the head of a multimedia company that can actively make or break artists and the other figure remains a journalist. Whatever lapse in ethics DeRo has, it will limit itself to Sound Opinions and the Sun Times....it won't impact the music business and how artists market their art.

There are journalistic ethics and there are business ethics, Schreiber is a fool if he thinks both can coexist peacefully.

#7 Not a lover or a hater says:

This is a very solid interview. DeRo asked the right tough questions and Schreiber handled them pretty well. Pitchfork hasn't done anything wrong - yet - and .tv sounds very promising. Schreiber's basically saying "trust us" and up to this point Pitchfork has basically earned that trust, though DeRo is right that history doesn't instill much confidence that that trust will not be broken at some point in the future. If it all goes to shit, we can look back on this interview as the sharkjumping moment.

#8 De Ro Sux says:

Ethics are ethics, no matter what business you're in. Frankly, I'm more impressed with Ryan Schreiber's ethics (and business acumen, and drive to champion independent music, and frankly far better taste in music)than De Rogatis' b.s. Like I said, those that live in glass houses... I love the sound of breaking glass, to quote Nick Lowe.

#9 CL says:

"De Ro Sux says:
Ethics are ethics, no matter what business you're in. Frankly, I'm more impressed with Ryan Schreiber's ethics (and business acumen, and drive to champion independent music, and frankly far better taste in music)than De Rogatis' b.s. Like I said, those that live in glass houses... I love the sound of breaking glass, to quote Nick Lowe."

Saying "ethics are ethics" is a cop out in this case and saying you like Schreiber's music taste more than DeRo's is far beside the point. Pitchfork is in a position where they influence record sales because a good record review, playing at their festival, being chosen by them for a soundtrack, and (soon) being featured on their channel makes for a lot of promotion and puts them in a place where they have a lot of influence over the life and death of a record or band. That sort of situation doesn't play to journalistic ethics where, as DeRo mentions, you're supposed to stand away from having a conflict of interest. When a record review matters to the extent of how much an album sells, who's playing at a festival that attracts many many people, who ends up on a soundtrack, and who ends up on your webtv station....I'd say that's quite a conflict of interests.

#10 CL says:

main point: either be a concert promoter and webtv producer or be a zine in the critical community. Don't be both and don't try to play it off that the two won't collide into a heap contradictions. And don't play dumb to the fact that a review in your zine can sell records.

#11 De Ro Sux says:

I have never seen pitchfork exploit $$$ for their own gain from giving a record a good review; i have seen de ro settle scores in his writing (albini is an example). Do the math.
As for expanding his company, what the hell else you gonna do? most media companies have many arms; that is the reality of life/business today. the ones that suck/are conflicted (MTV, anyone?) show up quick; the wheat gets separated from the chaff quickly, and either there's a quick death or slow, painful erosion. P-fork are baseball fans; why not do a baseball game? They're a smart co., so if there's a void in the market for curated independent music visuals, why not fill it? As de ro himself says, p-fork managed so far to have integrity, so they should be given a chance. and even if it does get a bit twisted, inevitably their desire to not suck as much as everyone else will likely shine through. i'd rather have pitchfork dominant than rolling stone (that day may actually be here)

#12 CL says:

Dominance is never a good thing. No matter who does it. If Pitchfork was only a company that did programming and production I wouldn't have an issue, but they're not. They made their name on criticism and are sticking with that end. It's hard to take their criticism seriously when they have their fingers in many pies and have the impact that they have.

BTW, going on and on about who DeRo has issues with is of no consequence to this discussion. The people who have issues with him also call him out, does that make them less credible too? Not really, if anything DeRo getting into rows with whoever doesn't really do him any favors I'm sure.

#13 The Optimist says:

I think all of you haters give Pitchfork too much credit. The only way they can make or break an artist is if everyone wanders around letting others make their decisions for them. At least Ryan's out doing something rather than sitting back hating.

#14 De Ro Sux says:

using your journalism settle scores is unethical, an imbalance of power, expression of ego and insecurity. being a bad writer a bad guy and a simple mind (but not SIMPLE MINDS) and an unnecessary ham-fisted provocateur is just lameness/staving off inevitable obsolescence
Ay, ay, the optimist #13! i agree
don't you forget about me

#15 Brill Building says:

We already have one Bill O'Reilly--why do we need one for music too?

#16 CL says:

Oh whatever. He's not really provoking here. These questions are very fair given what Pitchfork has evolved into.

p.s. Yes, Ryan has done good for the independents. no denying that. But that's not my argument.

#17 Jim DeRogatis says:

Dear "De Ro Sux" -- In addition to being spelling-challenged, you have some problems with facts.

You write: "i have seen de ro settle scores in his writing (albini is an example). Do the math."

I never "settled any scores" with Steve Albini in print because I never had any issues with Steve Albini. I have written glowingly positive things about his work at some times, and I have written harshly skeptical things at others, though much less often; I would say, on balance, that I admire his recordings and parts of his aesthetic and have some disagreements with some of his rigid philosophies.

You want to accuse me of "settling scores" in print, show us the quotes. It is not as if I haven't left a voluminous paper trail.

The point of my admittedly lengthy (lengthy because I wanted it to be fair and thorough) interview with Ryan Schreiber was not to tear him down, provoke him or do any of the things a few others here have accused me of. It was to ASK HIM THE QUESTIONS -- questions many people have; questions he himself says he has! And guess what? He ANSWERED them! Thoroughly, and graciously. And I printed every word of his responses.

The publisher of the most important, influential, and successful new music publication of the last decade is now on the record, extensively, about any possible ramifications of where his publication is going. And now we can sit back and see where it goes and how all of that plays out, and how it squares with the ideals that publisher expressed.

Oh -- the Bill O'Reilly dig? That's low. Do you think he would ever let his subject talk as much as I did with Mr. Schreiber? My questions may be wordy, and plentiful, and persistent. But I was seeking only good responses, not blood.

#18 Silva says:

"Integrity" is pimping a quite average web-presentation of a new videoclip from their darlings Arcade Fire (which I rate quite highly, for the record) as something never seen before? Or their incredibly pretentious tripe when they don't like a particular record and go ad-hominem instead of, you know, reviewing the record in question just to get reactions (and website hits)?

Bollocks to them. They're not much better than the ones of NME - only their taste in music is better.

#19 De Ro Sux says:

in the case of albini, in an article about urge overkill you printed an off-the-record conversation with albini, which is journalistically unethical (and seems like a score-settling move to me, a sucker punch for sure). Also, many bands have complained that you buddy up to them to their face, then savage them in print. not cool (although you didn't do this with schreiber). As for the bill o'reilly comment, which is not mine, your vampire weekend review is an example: lazily intended to knee-jerk provoke, with no recourse possible from the band. if you're going to throw stones, you can expect them right back.

#20 Hey De Ro says:

You weren't settling scores with Jan Wenner without context in that Schreiber interview?

#21 De Ro Sux says:

furthermore, those bands that felt you dicked them didn't complain because they were afraid you would use your pitchfork-like "power"(as a critic at a powerful newspaper, as an editor and writer at rolling stone and other magazines, as a significant member of the critical community) to savage them further

#22 De Ro Sux says:

consider this line from a De Ro piece on REM from Request:
"They were randy young rock stars who did all the things--drugs, sex, drinking, you name it--that you would imagine that they'd do," says a music industry veteran who was a close associate of the band through the late '80s. "The only thing was, you never read about it."

using anonymous sources is considered journalistically sleazy. As well, de ro had an interview with the band. if an anonymous source is going to slander someone, wouldn't you check it with the person you're writing about for response and include it in the article? as well, de ro slams rem many times throughout this piece, but comments after the fact: he does not confront the band with his slams, when he easily could've asked them the "hard questions." it's easy to be an armchair assassin after the fact, when the band isn't there to refute it; it's even worse when you could've in fact asked them the things you're ridiculing them for. read for yourself:http://www.jimdero.com/OtherWritings/Other%20R.E.M..htm

furthermore, this piece is obviously "settling scores" with rem for not giving de ro what he considers appropriate access, and for coming down hard on his buddy barney hoskyns. and i quote:
"(Stipe) does chat with Rolling Stone's Heath, and he gives a few short quotes about Nabokov to The New York Times' Mason, acknowledging those publications' positions at the top of the journalistic pecking order."

as de ro himself said, he's got a huge paper trail.

#23 Jim DeRogatis says:

1. Albini claimed his comments to me about Urge Overkill were off the record only after the fact; I would not have quoted him if he said we were off the record when he called me at home to rant about that band. It takes both journalist and subject to make such a pact. In any event, at the time and ever since, the fact that he thinks Urge Overkill suck was hardly a world-class secret.

2. "Many bands have complained that you buddy up to them to their face, then savage them in print." That's ridiculous. I don't like anybody and have no friends; how can I be any good at buddying up to anyone? Am I blacking out all the times I gave bands a box of chocolates and a dozen roses before writing a critical piece? Must be.

3. "Using anonymous sources is considered journalistically [sic] sleazy." Really? It is an essential tool of investigative reporting -- from long before Watergate to these days following Abu Ghraib -- and it is the only way difficult reporting is ever really possible, though it must be done within strict ethical guidelines. I stood by that quote about R.E.M. when it was published, as did my editors, two of the finest in the biz, Keith Moerer and Susan Hamre; I stand by it now. My source was unassailable. And I have asked R.E.M. countless difficult questions. You're saying I took that shot at R.E.M. because I was jealous that at that interview, I didn't talk to Stipe, only Buck and Mills? And not because I was pointing out substantial inconsistencies between their public image and the behind the scenes business and personal practices? Uh, yeah...

End of the day, Mr. DeRo Sux: You know who I am. My name is on every article I've ever written. I am accountable to every reader, and accessible as well: My contact info is everywhere. Who are you? Anonymity is for cowardly blowhards with hidden agendas.

#24 Jim DeRogatis says:

Oh, yeah... Jann Wenner. Um, when speaking to the founder, owner, and publisher of the most successful new American music magazine in the last decade or more, to whom would YOU compare him in terms of what he is trying to do and where he is trying to go? To the late Barry Kramer, founder of Creem? To Andy Schwartz of the late, lamented New York Rocker? Ira Robbins of Trouser Press? Paul Williams of Crawdaddy?

Wenner, love him or hate him (and I fall into the latter group; no secret there), is the paradigm of publishing in rock journalism and a DOH! obvious point of reference and comparison, the same way the next bicycling superstar is destined to be compared to Lance Armstrong.

#25 De Ro Sux says:

Re: 23, 24
1. "Albini claimed his comments to me about Urge Overkill were off the record only after the fact." you are not on very solid ground here. this is like reagan claiming he "didn't remember" what he did about iran contra. your answer answers it: whether a conversation is on or off record needed to be totally clear with both writer/subject before you print the quote. in your case it wasn't, as YOU make clear; this isn't a place for "he said, she said." i stand by my assertion that this practice is unethical, and your response is weak.
2. everybody here knows what's up. you have the same ethical pressures in making/breaking bands as pitchfork. you do have a national radio show, in addition to your role as a major critic at a newspaper. building a media empire, anyone? furthermore, you don't have to bring a "box of chocolates" to a band to butter them up; ridiculous. just as peter buck used that "i never heard that question before" line on you to put you at ease, music critics tell bands what they want to hear in order to make them feel "safe"-show an insight into their music, remember the title of their first album, make a joke at a rival's expense... my feeling is, you buddied up to rem, and then stuck it to them; it's clear in your exchance with buck. was there a a semi-unchewed question in there or two? sure. rem expect that; they've been interviewed millions of times. but your "tough questions" were outnumbered by your armchair assassinations, and the biggest one-your anonymous quote-was never asked.

#26 De Ro Sux says:

3. i stand by MY quote, motherfucker. again, you avoid the question with heated, irrelevant, and self-gratifying, overblown rhetoric. using anonymous sources IS considered sleazy-the last respite for a journalist. in the cases you mentioned (abu gharab and watergate) those anonymous sources led to voluminous, overwhelming evidence in cases of international significance. those quotes wouldn't have been published if that evidence didn't exist. now, to my point, which you studiously avoid: you had the chance to run an anonymous, potentially slanderous quote past the band, and you didn't, and you ran it anyway. that's sleazy/unethical, period. and if your source was so "unassailable," you would've printed his/her name. as for being edited by "the finest editors," well, "love or consequences" was also edited by "the finest editors"; shit gets past "the finest editors" all the time (cf ny times, everyday). what is most ludicrous in your assertion is that you're comparing an article about a rock band to abu gharab and watergate!??! have you lost your mind? why don't you compare yourself to martin luther king, while you're at it? and the foundation of the article is baseless, and should've been caught by those "finest editors": that a multi-million selling band contracted to a major international conglomerate is doing a little media massaging isn't news. period. it isn't even interesting. rolling stone and the new york times reach more people, so they get more time. so what? also, the article you wrote about rem was published by a magazine owned by a national record chain; how do we know that it wasn't retaliation for another chain getting more rem promo posters, say? what's the firewall/conflict there?
4. don't like my anonymity? welcome to the internet, homes. frankly, you have way more power than little ol' me commenting in a website that has maybe 1/10 your audience. but more importantly, the essence of good journalism is that you get all sides-something that doesn't always happen in your writing, as i have demonstrated. you have had ample space/time to respond to everything i've written; you yourself suggested we dig through your articles and find examples, so we did, and your responses are sub-par. this is the new citizen journalism, not your obsolete, faux lester bangisms. as for agendas, my only one is to stop people like you and bill o'reilly from stirring up controversy about things i love just to draw attention to yourself. in most such cases, such an approach simply points to an intellectual vacuity that's being covered up. if you took all that energy and put it towards something of substance as opposed to empty controversy, you'd be on to something (to prove this is not an ad hominem attack, i would say your in-depth championing of the flaming lips is in fact a good example of this). anyways, if you want to find me, here i am.

#27 De Ro Sux says:

5. as for jan wenner, again, back to journalism 101: full disclosure is always necessary. your history is not as famous as you think it is. if i worked for bob dylan and he fired me, then if i wrote an article about bob dylan, i would have to mention it, regardless if he is a titan of his industry. you were fired acrimoniously by jan wenner; if you mention him seventeen times in an article without mentioning this, it seems as if you are out to get him. not to mention, there are countless other media magnates you could've compared schreiber to. myspace started as a music site, for example. why not compare him to someone from the new media age he came out of? to focus on wenner relentlessly without full disclosure of your relationship with him just looks like more character assassination, using your position as a bully pulpit, especially as there are other, more pertinent examples. again, as you did in all your responses, you tried to shell-game away the fact that you committed an ethical violation. in some weird way, i feel like your heart is in the right place somewhere; i just think it's time for you to re-assess your position in the critical community, just as schreiber has to. unlike you, however, whatever fame he’s having doesn’t seem to be going to his head.

#28 to clarify my first point... says:

if a guy calls you at home and starts ranting, and you want to print it, you simply say, "can i quote you on that?" that didn't happen; journalism 101.

#29 CL says:

Albini isn't a stupid person. Odds are good he knows how an interview works and that when you say something that could be potentially damaging to yourself or another person you say "can you keep this off the record?" Is that the journalist's responsibility? That depends on your opinion. IMHO, you (the interview subject) should know how the press works and the ill effects of what you say is your fault and YOU should know when to shut up.

anonymous sources? You take them for what they are.

#30 Jim DeRogatis says:

"anyways, if you want to find me, here i am."

Yes indeed -- sniping from the cowardly shelter of online anonymity, mixing innuendo and accusation in a blur of garbled syntax and embarrassing misspellings.

My final comment here is that you seem to think I attacked something you love (Pitchfork) by bringing up something I dislike (Rolling Stone), which is funny, because I don't think Ryan took it that way any more than I intended it that way. Jann Wenner/Rolling Stone was understood by both of us during that conversation, as is clear from the context, to represent the paradigm of "big business music media." Ryan doesn't want to become that, quite clearly, and I think it's just as clear that I'd hate to see him become that. The gist of that long interview is my questioning him on his plans to expand -- and his publication is undeniably at an historic crossroads in that regard -- and if he has foreseen the obstacles he might face to Pitchfork's credibility as he does that.

He answered at length, on the record. (People who regularly give interviews well know that if they do not want to be quoted, they must first request, "I'd like to say this off the record," and the journalist they are speaking to must respond, "Fine, it's off the record"; when someone calls a journalist out of the blue and just starts talking, that cannot possibly be assumed to be off the record. It's contrary to Journalism 101, as you're fond of saying, and I would refer you to Woodward and Bernstein and the call with Attorney General Mitchell involving a rude, angry comment about publisher Katharine Graham's breast, among many examples.) Anyway, Pitchfork is growing, and Ryan's comments about the publication keeping its integrity as it grows will either turn out to be true or they won't. I don't know why you think I'm hoping for the latter. Didn't I say I'd love to write the story where they prove to be the rare exception? Well, I really would.

#31 De Ro Sux says:

My last comment: in fact, it is the journalist's responsibility to determine whether something is off the record. good luck to both pitchfork and jim in defining themselves.


Click Here