Spot on, especially the point in your blog about us being even more vulnerable to such things, not less. I think the same is also true of politics, the seductive trappings of power may overwhelm and corrupt those who have risen from the lower planes of disenfranchisement even more than those who are brought up, educated and indoctrinated to be managers/rulers.
It can be easy to sneer at journalistic codes of conduct given the reality of that industry, but at least there is some idea of standards and a clear barometer by which failings can be measured, and those who have been educated to enter that field at least know some detail about the ethical minefield and so dont make the kind of jaw-dropping statements that some in the blogosphere have made when defending themselves against accusations of selling out. I dont want to mention names as that will only open open old wounds, but I can think of a couple of instances where such things emerged on this list years ago, although I think there was also an example of political non-disclosure which never got aired here in detail, boom boom Senator Edwards. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], Roxanne Darling <oke...@...> wrote: > > Well I hate to disagree with some of you however I just blogged about this > (again) this morning:It's Official: Bloggers Are Recognized by the > FTC<http://www.barefeetstudios.com/2009/10/06/its-official-bloggers-are-recognized-by-the-ftc/> > > <http://www.barefeetstudios.com/2009/10/06/its-official-bloggers-are-recognized-by-the-ftc/>I > see it from another side. If bloggers want respect, we have to stop acting > like we are above ethics and can somehow police ourselves when no other > group of humanity has demonstrated that ability. Do you not all see the > payola that is everywhere in the blogosphere? Does that not bother you as > the pure of heart I know so many of you to be? > > True Case in point: > > Well-know travel blogger writes on her blog that she was fired from her job. > She bemoans the situation, says she didn't like it anyway, and os going to > take a trip to Hawaii to clear her head. Her loyal and empathic readers give > her the blog equivalent of "you go girl! we support you taking you care of > yourself." She then proceeds to blog lyrically about the cool places where > she stays on multiple islands and the amazing (business) people she meets on > her trip. No where does she disclose that her trip was a "fam" trip. A > practice long ago abandoned by reputable travel writers. No where does she > use the nofollow tag on all her links to so-called friends she met and > products/services she used/bought on her trip. > > I think that is misleading and abuse of privilege. I also think it is > unnecessary. Loyal readers will be happy she got the earned trip and will > ignore themselves the built-in advantage one gives to gifts in cash or in > kind. > > We don't like this practice when lobbyists take our congress people on > vacations and we don't like it when said congress people claim not to be > influenced. > > What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech > or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL > speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. > > Done. > > Aloha, > > Roxanne > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:56 AM, elbowsofdeath <st...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > 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] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > Rupert Howe <rupert@> 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.miles@ > > > > >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) > > > > bigdogvideo@ > > > > www.irishhermit.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Roxanne Darling > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian > Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more > http://reef.beachwalks.tv > 808-384-5554 > Video --> http://www.beachwalks.tv > Company -- > http://www.barefeetstudios.com > Twitter--> http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
