Seattlest Pix 09Nov21
Touch Me, I'm Sick
Seattlest Pix 09Nov22
Manifold Motion's Miscellenea II Wraps Up Tonight
Around The -Ists This Week
Seattlest is shocked, shocked! to read that the freaking Federal Trade Commission plans to investigate bloggers who review and endorse products because (God forbid) they might have actually received those products for free. Duh. We hereby disclose that bloggers regularly get free stuff (tickets, books) in the mail, and we sometimes review the stuff we get (or see or read). Sometimes we like it, sometimes it's crap, and we say so. Why should the FTC give a rat's ass?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
In Woodinville there's a hole-in-the-wall charcuterie named Bill The Butcher which has the most outl
[more]
As a consumer, I'd like to know if you were paid or received any sort of compensation when you're reviewing an item. Obviously, this could impact your review and it should be revealed in your review.
Now, whether the government should be involved in forcing you to do so is another issue. But I think that a respectable blogger would indicate if they were paid or received free items or anything in return for a review. Then I can take that into account when I read your thoughts. It's only fair.
Go build a bridge!
Uptop!
You're wrong, Amy. Bloggers have no responsibility; that's what makes us bloggers. (Now, our editor, MvB, he's got big-time responsibilities.) It's caveat lector, in case you didn't know.
Unfair Ronald. Bloggers pull the "But we ARE Journalists" card all the time. There are bloggers looking to get press credentials for sporting events and concerts. There are bloggers looking to be given the same respect from political orgainzations as "real journalists"
Basically, I think the point is, "You can't have it both ways"
Either be a legit news source that accepts no freebies or at least discloses all of these things (as Amy rightly suggested) or go back to being the pimply faced geeks in the basement of your mother's house (which I know you're not, but...)
BigGreenFrank nails it. Be open and honest, Ronald. Tell us about any free dinners and trips you accept.
I will agree, however, that it's no business of the FTC. I wouldn't want a government agency telling professionals (newspaper and magazine writers, for example) what they can and can't write, and that should go for you amateurs as well.
first they want us to "work" for free and now they're coming after our lavish kickbacks! Is there no justice in the blogoverse?
This is an interesting point. I can see both sides now / From up and down, and still somehow...
First of all, our writers certainly don't accept cash payment from outside sources in trade for publicity. We only allow "free" samples if they are the subject of the reporting and it's common practice. I know some blogs don't allow free at all--we try to mention it as part of the story: e.g., "Venue invited us to a media event last night...."
(I am not sure print media is fully consistent, though, BigGreenFrank. For instance, it's my understanding they, like us, get free books for review, and I don't recall every book review beginning with "Full disclosure: we didn't buy this book." And your example of sports credentials is another area where media, by convention, may not pay to attend.)
We do accept review tickets to music and arts events--it's the only way our volunteer bloggers could cover all of the stuff we cover. Food-wise, while we do accept an occasional invitation to sample a restaurant's new menu, we generally don't review those events. We cover the "new" part, and save the criticism for later. What's the difference between food and music? I do not know.
I do think the gravity of the ethical dilemma is ameliorated a bit by any media format that allows reader feedback--when the public has the chance to call bullshit publicly there's less of a chance that someone will shill, or have enough critical authority that their shilling works.
BigGreenFrank's got it right.
MSM has been around for a long time, and while you quarrel with how business is done, the rules are pretty clear. No, book reviewers don't buy books. Neither do CD reviewers buy CDs. I don't expect someone who reviews a car to have gone out and bought one first - then presumably sold it so they could review another car next week.
Cheap things - like books and CDs are given out freely (having worked on a music mag, I was amazed how many CDs flowed through the door. But those were the good old days). More expensive items (think audio systems) are loaned. If I found out a reviewer was given a $5000 audio system and gave it a great review, it would be way different than someone who had the chance to spend a little time with a pricey system and then returned it to the manufacturer - And then next week got a loan of another fancy-ass system from another manufacturer.
Where does this leave us? I think a vendor can buy you a soda and ask you to write about it. They could buy you a T-Shirt and ask you to write about it - and you could write whatever you want. If they want to buy you a suit? No, you can't write about it.
Just a minute, there's a HUGE double standard here.
When I type my posts, it's on my own laptop, not my company's. At my home office, paid for with after-tax dollars. My hours aren't on anybody's clock, and I pay my own hosting fees.
On the other hand, I write what I choose, say what I will. Readers? What readers? Those who care what I say, who know I speak my mind, whose trust I have earned.
Yet here come BigGreenFrank and bilco amd the rest of the hypocrites, telling me I must "disclose" who gave me what. A car? Don't I wish. Dinner? You think I'd sell my personal integrity for DINNER?
No, I say. Readers who hold me to a standard you could not meet yourselves, readers like you I do not need.
"Disclosure" only creates the illusion of independence; it doesn't erase responsibility. Sure, a lot of bloggers are dicks, but only bloggers are truly free.
You can't review a restaurant on gifts or notice, because you need to be able to remain anonymous. This is in order to maintain an experience your readership will likely also receive. If they know a food critic is in the house, he or she will be pampered a little bit extra.
As far as disclosures go, it's always a good idea, just to play it safe. Necessary? probably not, but government mandated? I can find better things to have my tax dollars spent on. Like racing strips on the Secret Service vehicles.
In "regular" journalism, they're ethically bound to not accept gifts. Most get things on loan, not only for ethical reasons brought down by the editors, but also because the manufacturers don't want their prize technology or product being flaunted around. It's about control.
But since the dawn of PR, press folks (of all backgrounds) got press kits. Little goodie bags barely relating to the product.
They don't disclose these. Is that wrong? Wouldn't that shade their articles?
Please, bloggers, accept all gifts. If you feel like YOUR readers should know, tell them. Readers, if you think YOUR blogger may have been compromised, ask. If you don't like the response, stop reading and if you like it, click more ads.
Wow, struck a nerve there, huh Ronald? You know you're losing the argument -- or have something to hide? -- when you resort to name-calling.
Not sure why it matters whether you pay for your own computer or not. Credibility is credibility, whether you write for a paycheck or for your own reasons.
A review copy of a $15 CD or a $20 book is one thing, as bilco points out. But there are businesses out there who will offer (and freelance writers and bloggers who will accept) trips, pricey dinners for you and your friends, laptop computers, etc., in exchange for what they fully expect will be a positive review.
You're right, you don't have to disclose anything, and those who know you will presumably continue to trust you as much as they always have. The rest of us just have to wonder, I guess.
If I were writing for the Times, they'd provide me with office space, a laptop, electric power and (not least) a paycheck. Yet no one questions Nancy Leson's independence or objectivity (nor should they). Nancy's perks are institutional, paid for by a commercial enterprise that makes its money selling ad space based on access to HER readers. (Traditional journalism has only recently come around to the "disclosure" of free trips & meals, BTW.) But we shouldn't pretend that "disclosing" or "refusing" freebies puts a writer on a higher moral ground and automatically produces a more impartial (hence better??) review. The notion that a holy alien or well-meaning ignoramus provides more useful information to the reader is absurd...except perhaps for readers who are aliens or ignoramuses.
The whole point of reading blogs is that the reader isn't paying anything and has no investment. Hence it's up to the writer of the blog to provide content that's appealing and worthwhile. You don't like it, STFU and move on.
STFU? So much for thoughtful, reasoned discussion.