Even if the rules aren't applied to traditional media -- that seems to be more a bug than a feature. Quit your whining. This isn't some grand plot to put the blogger down.
The net result is that the FTC seems to have made a very good call, and we (the blog consumers) should all be the better for it: We'll now know up front if/when and what incentives a blogger has received to write a post. That seems like good progress to me.
If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting.
> Even if the rules aren't applied to traditional media -- that seems to be more a bug than a feature. Quit your whining. This isn't some grand plot to put the blogger down.
The first sentence points out that it is "discriminatory" while the last says that it isn't. Hmm.
As to "it's a very good call" argument, at least one real journalist who has actually read the proposal disagrees.
> We'll now know up front if/when and what incentives a blogger has received to write a post.
Actually, you won't. In fact, NYT's "bloggers" and print version will continue to be just as free to accept money under the table or have other conflicts (like being married to someone who directly benefits from the coverage) without a peep.
"If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting."
Sure, it may require that bloggers report gifts and incentives. But the law is basically unenforceable. There are millions of blogs in existence and the FTC cannot police them all. While I'm sure that the FTC is only intending to go after the extremely successful blogs, it would be preferable to see some kinds of limits built into the guidelines so we actually know where the FTC is intending to enforce these guidelines.
Second of all, this is the internet. So if someone seriously wanted to get around this, they would just have to host their blog someplace where the FTC doesn't have authority.
It's not possible to police millions of bloggers, but IIUC if some company with deep pockets enlists thousands of bloggers in a stealth "social marketing" campaign, and the ruse is discovered, the company can now be fined for deceptive trading practices.
While this would be a good use for the guidelines, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm seems to imply that the onus is on the blogger to declare material connections. So while it might help with astroturfing, I don't see it really stopping a company with deep pockets from sending out cash and items to review to bloggers.I also would not see the guidelines increasing liability for the company if the ftc is holding bloggers responsible for declaring endorsements.
If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting.
Bullshit. This is akin to saying that if you're upset about the government running illegal wiretaps and eavesdropping on your cell calls, it must be because you have something to hide.
Perhaps we just don't like the idea of the government butting into one corner of the media world and spewing arbitrary and ambiguous guidelines that carry heavy fines if violates, despite the fact that it's not really clear how to avoid violating them.
Of course it's clear how to avoid violating them - use a guideline compliance checker. Me, I like GuiPli, from Comline Systems - it scans my bamk acount and social network inbox, looking for freebies or even direct payments from companies whose products or services I have blogged about. If it finds any, a little red light goes on, and I add a disclaimer like this:
Note: the author has received compensation from ComLine Systems or its PR company for this article.
You don't like the government butting into the media world? Fine, let's go back to the days of Payola, allow advertisers to make blatantly false claims without giving you any grounds for legal recourse (you'd think you could sue, but that really depends on the government's agreement that a tort has been committed) and just toss out any guidelines about keeping advertising and editorial separate. Screw the consumers - they may have a legitimate interest in knowing whether the author of a gushing article got compensated for their glowing words or not, but let's face it, th less they think, the more they spend!
Comments
Even if the rules aren't applied to traditional media -- that seems to be more a bug than a feature. Quit your whining. This isn't some grand plot to put the blogger down.
The net result is that the FTC seems to have made a very good call, and we (the blog consumers) should all be the better for it: We'll now know up front if/when and what incentives a blogger has received to write a post. That seems like good progress to me.
If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting.
> Even if the rules aren't applied to traditional media -- that seems to be more a bug than a feature. Quit your whining. This isn't some grand plot to put the blogger down.
The first sentence points out that it is "discriminatory" while the last says that it isn't. Hmm.
As to "it's a very good call" argument, at least one real journalist who has actually read the proposal disagrees.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-spee...
> We'll now know up front if/when and what incentives a blogger has received to write a post.
Actually, you won't. In fact, NYT's "bloggers" and print version will continue to be just as free to accept money under the table or have other conflicts (like being married to someone who directly benefits from the coverage) without a peep.
"If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting."
Sure, it may require that bloggers report gifts and incentives. But the law is basically unenforceable. There are millions of blogs in existence and the FTC cannot police them all. While I'm sure that the FTC is only intending to go after the extremely successful blogs, it would be preferable to see some kinds of limits built into the guidelines so we actually know where the FTC is intending to enforce these guidelines.
Second of all, this is the internet. So if someone seriously wanted to get around this, they would just have to host their blog someplace where the FTC doesn't have authority.
Edit: changed FCC to FTC
It's not possible to police millions of bloggers, but IIUC if some company with deep pockets enlists thousands of bloggers in a stealth "social marketing" campaign, and the ruse is discovered, the company can now be fined for deceptive trading practices.
While this would be a good use for the guidelines, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm seems to imply that the onus is on the blogger to declare material connections. So while it might help with astroturfing, I don't see it really stopping a company with deep pockets from sending out cash and items to review to bloggers.I also would not see the guidelines increasing liability for the company if the ftc is holding bloggers responsible for declaring endorsements.
If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting.
Bullshit. This is akin to saying that if you're upset about the government running illegal wiretaps and eavesdropping on your cell calls, it must be because you have something to hide.
Perhaps we just don't like the idea of the government butting into one corner of the media world and spewing arbitrary and ambiguous guidelines that carry heavy fines if violates, despite the fact that it's not really clear how to avoid violating them.
Of course it's clear how to avoid violating them - use a guideline compliance checker. Me, I like GuiPli, from Comline Systems - it scans my bamk acount and social network inbox, looking for freebies or even direct payments from companies whose products or services I have blogged about. If it finds any, a little red light goes on, and I add a disclaimer like this:
Note: the author has received compensation from ComLine Systems or its PR company for this article.
You don't like the government butting into the media world? Fine, let's go back to the days of Payola, allow advertisers to make blatantly false claims without giving you any grounds for legal recourse (you'd think you could sue, but that really depends on the government's agreement that a tort has been committed) and just toss out any guidelines about keeping advertising and editorial separate. Screw the consumers - they may have a legitimate interest in knowing whether the author of a gushing article got compensated for their glowing words or not, but let's face it, th less they think, the more they spend!