Occasionally it is worth stepping back from the story itself and addressing how and why I cover travel news in the first place on Live And Let’s Fly.
On Travel Rumors, Original Sources, And Responsible Reporting
I saw Brian Cohen’s post on The Gate about how he “rarely jump[s] on the ‘breaking news’ bandwagon” and why he prefers to wait for original sources before reporting anything. I respect the principle of verifying and citing primary sources, but the implication that other bloggers (like me) somehow undermined credibility by writing about rumored Hyatt changes is both inaccurate and misses how responsible travel reporting actually works.
First, let’s be clear about what happened in my piece. I identified the report as unverified from the start, labeled it as rumor, and explicitly warned readers to take it with a grain of salt. I also explained the context and clearly stated that it was unconfirmed. That is not reporting something as fact. That is responsible reporting on a plausible industry rumor with enough specificity to merit discussion.
Second, unlike sites that simply repost reddit threads as headlines, the intent of my article was analysis, not simple amplification. My readers want a thoughtful breakdown of what might be coming, how it fits into broader loyalty program trends, and what it could mean if true. That analysis is rooted in years of covering airline and hotel loyalty programs, not in blind repetition of internet chatter.
Third, official sources are not always available in the world of travel loyalty reporting. After all, it was me (almost a decade ago) that broke the news of the new World of Hyatt program…an anonymous Hyatt insider leaked it to a colleague who leaked it to me and I ran with it. Hyatt hated me for it (Jeff Zidell told me to my face he could not forgive me for that), but it was pertinent information and I felt my readers deserved to know about it as soon as possible, not on Hyatt’s terms.
Changes to award charts, credit card benefits, and program mechanics are often discussed in industry circles, leaked through community channels, or hinted at long before any official announcement is made. Waiting until a hotel chain publishes a press release defeats much of the purpose of travel reporting, which is to give readers time to adjust expectations and strategy.
Brian is right that accuracy matters. But there is a difference between verification and responsible contextualization. In my article, I walked readers through what was being discussed, explained why it was plausible, and made it clear that it might not ultimately come to pass. That is transparency, not recklessness.
Travel writing should not be a race to latch onto every unverified claim, but it also should not ignore credible signals until a final news release lands on my desk. Loyalty programs evolve quietly and incrementally, and readers are better served by thoughtful interpretation of those signals than by silence until everything is officially announced.
Also, I’m a blogger…I’ve never held myself out as a professional journalist, but even a journalist should not be pilloried for writing these type of stories. We are on the cusp of the annual Hyatt devaluation and speculating about what may be next should not be out of bounds.
On Epstein And Hyatt
And one more thing. Brian also mentioned the link between Hyatt and the Epstein Files, adding, “I truly do not understand how this development has anything to do with travel — nor do I understand how it benefits readers…”
(raises hand)
I’ll tell you what this has to do with travel: isn’t it newsworthy that one of Hyatt’s most senior leaders was closely linked to Epstein and arranged personal travel on his behalf, potentially to traffic women? (Though that seems unlikely)
My answer is yes.
What did Pritzker receive in return? Was Pritzker aware of what Epstein was found guilty of?
This blog is about so much more than miles and points and putting blogger in scare quotes because you disagree with the editorial direction of the blog strikes me as petulant. It is about travel, including the nexus between travel, politics, and law. I write about what interests me and I believe helping to understand the extent of Epstein’s network of allies and co-conspirators is very beneficial to readers since we all should be informed about the world around us and the power structures that run it.
CONCLUSION
I consider Brian Cohen a friend and view him as a blogger with integrity, but I think he’s dead wrong here and his judgment that bloggers like me should “strive to be more careful and improve their methods of reporting information to their audiences” is not valid criticism in this case precisely because of the way the Hyatt rumor was prefaced on my blog and on the blogs of colleagues like View From The Wing and One Mile At A Time. On the contrary, I think it would have been irresponsible not to cover it…
It’s Pritzker. Make sure you spell the surname of your next VP correctly.
I didn’t know that Vance already announced him as his running mate!
Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom. — Aristotle —
Not sure why but IMO the Brian of 10 years ago is not the same Brian today.
It’s called dementia, Rene.
What I find odd is that none of the blogs you list, or yourself, disclosed what you actually know, because I’m pretty sure you know what I know.
Journalism straddles a fence. To get to an interview you might have to be unliked. Allow your readers to make their own judgements, and discuss. This is how we can find common ground.
Brian is right and you are “dead wrong” about trading in unsourced rumor and gossip. It’s lazy clickbait.
Matthew, I’ve been reading you for a decade. I appreciate your approach and perspective more than almost all other travel bloggers. That being said, your article covered it as an unconfirmed leak—not a “claimed leak” or “alleged leak” or “possible leak posted on a site from an unknown source.” The language of your article repeatedly characterized it as an actual leak that Hyatt had yet to confirm, but signaled largely negative changes.
For example, your article started with this: “An unconfirmed but detailed leak…” Yes, you said to take it with a grain of salt as to whether the changes described on the post would come to fruition.
Under “Award Chart Reshuffle” you said, “ The leaks also point to a reshuffling of categories 6 through 8.” Again, describing it as a leak, meaning readers would logically conclude you believe the leak came from Hyatt— whether or not the leak reflected a policy that was going to be enacted is a different story.
You also used language making the changes sound like a foregone conclusion; saying they “will be tied” without qualifying “if the rumor reflects actual changes to the World of Hyatt program”:
“Instead of traditional peak award bands, pricing during those windows will be tied to a fixed 1.5 cents per point ….”
I thought your article largely struck the right approach, but now that you are writing another article defending your journalism it sounds like thou doth protest too much—which is the only reason I’m commenting now.
Finally, I don’t recall seeing you write whether you reached out to Hyatt for comment. Yes, I understand they won’t ever confirm program changes. But asking for comment is a journalistic check against being duped by a source that sounds trustworthy.
I do think Brian’s article was a little self aggrandizing. His comment about Pritzger and Epstein sounded like when the President says something like “A lot of people would call [fill in the blank] a washed up loser, but I certainly won’t do that.”
Keep up the overall excellent work. But I am mad at the blogging community for jumping on this rumor as being a real leak because now the folks at Hyatt can say, “Hey, those ideas sound great and the pushback is less than we thought. Let’s talk about that for the next devaluation.”
The tradeoff of ignoring these highly detailed rumors when I have direct experience with Hyatt stonewalling was not a palatable option.
What you do isn’t journalism by any stretch of the imagination or definition of the word.
But it’s absolutely your right to publish anything you F’n want.
F this clown and I hope you tell him to his face next time you see him. Or just kick him in the nuts.
I never claimed to be a journalist. But that doesn’t discount that even journalists can write about rumors…
“Journalism” – good one
You’re not a professional journalist- I’m not saying that in order to discredit anything that you’ve written, but rather to underscore the fact that you’re not really bound by codes of professional practice or basically anything other than your own conscience. Given that you’ve labelled the content as unconfirmed, I don’t think anyone could blame you for anything in relation to this case, and I obviously agree that the content was relevant to your audience.
Laughing my a$$ off that you think the “professional” journalists at the mainstream media outlets abide by a code of professional conduct. Not when there’s a chance to smear a republican. They are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democrat party.
Yeah, I’m sure that Croatian and Indonesian journalists, as well as the people in charge of meteorology at Australian TV channels, are all lining up to smear republicans.
Chi, you’re banned. What a sad and pathetic person you are. I hope you get the help you need…
This is only the beginning as AI makes it harder the distinguish between real and fake stories. Just wait until its something more serious than a hotel loyalty change
No no. Finding another girlfriend for a human trafficker is absolutely not about human trafficking.
Christina values though.
But if blogging about rumors, you should make it abundantly clear that it is a rumor and what are the sources of the rumor. Otherwise, it IS irresponsible.
I agree with Chris; reposting that rumor as quickly as you did and adding a few foregone conclusion comments is a bit of a ding on an otherwise stellar track record of trying to do the right thing while also giving your very own perspective on travel news and experiences.
Several years ago it seemed all the blogs basically were cross-posts of each other, the only difference was who took credit for posting first. I’m glad you have moved on from that (and breathlessly praising UA), breaking your own news, finding unique topics and what makes your blog great; giving your perspective in a thoughtful manner.
I used to be a fan of Brian until Covid when he went off the deep end. He refused to take a vaccine that hadn’t had many years of history to ensure safety. He was adamant about that. The problem was that as a new sickness there were no historical vaccines with decades of results and side effects. I tried explaining the whole science thing along with others but he ignored us. Ironically, he had no problem risking his life more directly by flying on aircraft without the same long pedigree. That hypocrisy led me to stop viewing his blog.
And yet, history has now shown that the vaccine was not nearly as safe as advertised. And it did little to stop the spread, necessitating continued shots every few months. And vast numbers of recipients still got Covid and continued to spread the germs despite being vaccinated. I, too, was never vaccinated and have never contracted Covid despite being out and about throughout the entire debacle.
We have immune systems for a reason. If yours is not working well, by all means, shore it up with extra vaccines and medications. If yours works as God intended, let it do its job for seasonal illnesses.
You took it, and you feel good about that choice – excellent.
Others did not take it (and did not spread Covid any more than vaccine users did) and also feel good about that choice – excellent.
Furthermore, most of those I knew who took it wish they had not – sad for them.
Liar!
Good for you not knowing anyone who died early because of Covid. Many of the rest of us were not so fortunate. Science helped the world lessen that catastrophe through vaccines. You can claim that polio and measles are wonderful if you want but I’ll stick with best scientific advice over herbal teas and witchdoctor remedies.
Non sequiter: Brian Cohen likes confederate monuments. Also he reviews things that no one cares about.
Different perspectives discussed rationally are signs of a healthy relationship. Sadly I think many people forget this today. Often I’ve learned more from my mistakes, painful as they were at the time than my successes…as my good friend would say “a bought lesson is the best lesson.” (Not implying that either Matt nor Brian was incorrect, per se,)
Matthew you are so good looking.
Sounds like Brian is the Gate-keeper.
Naw, say whatever you wanna say, Matt.
More is more.
Credible news reporters don’t print rumors. Columnists are free to print rumors. Same with bloggers. So it’s absolutely fine for Matthew to publish rumors and speculate — even when he’s wrong. It’s forgotten the next day, at least by most people, the ones who have lives.
I don’t understand how Brian even has a blog on BA.