>From what I have read of the FTCs guidelines and stance so far, it mostly >boils down to whether people are being mislead, and the regard that consumers >have for different messengers is taken into account . eg if people dont trust >journalists very much in the first place, or expect them to be distorting >things for commercial reasons, then this is taken into account when >considering how likely people are to be mislead, ie the capacity to mislead is >reduced if the messenger is not trusted in the first place.
When individuals blog on the net, there are not likely to be so many preconceived ideas, people may be more inclined to take them at face value, hence the need to disclosure of commercial relationships and suchlike. "permit to speak' is rhetoric that just makes me laugh, thats not what this is about at all. Nobody has to get a license to speak, its just that they dont have freedom to say whatever they like without potential consequences, which is fine by me. We are never free from the consequences of words, whether its me being unpopular for things I say, or someone risking a fine for trying to promote things in ways that are potentially misleading. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], Rupert Howe <rup...@...> wrote: > > Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I > don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real > ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. > > Sure, they have some house standards, and they are self-regulating in > cases of extreme breach. > > But mostly it's just muckraking, partisan politics and sensationalism > in the name of trying to stay afloat and not lose advertisers. > > Look through your newspapers today and tell me that they're being > transparent about their advertising. > > A journalist in this group told me only last month about how his > editor killed a story he was writing about a huge corporate crime > solely because the criminals were big advertisers. > > I think maybe the US has a stronger myth of the noble journalist and > truth seeking press. However true that is, I don't know - certainly I > don't see much in the way of truth seeking editors and proprietors. > > So I don't see why people writing or publishing online have to be > regulated at all, beyond existing laws. There will always be conmen > and suckers, politicians and voters, papers and readers. Regulations > like this don't change any of that, they're just something for > politicians and civil servants to do. And how will this be enforced > - whose permits would be monitored and taken away, and how? Surely > it's a joke - but a lucrative joke, if your Permit To Speak costs you > money to buy. > > And, in the end, Permits to Speak will be abused by people who don't > agree with what you say. > > > On 6-Oct-09, at 4:48 PM, Tom Gosse wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles <adrian.mi...@... > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can > > > call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not > > > want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. > > > > > > > Well said! > > > > -- > > Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) > > bigdogvi...@... > > www.irishhermit.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
