PEORIA -- Here's an interesting story from today's New York Times website:
Headline: "Blogger to Pay $30,000 in S.E.C. Case"
Story begins: "Prominent liberal blogger Jerome Armstrong has agreed to pay nearly $30,000 in fines in a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that Armstrong touted the stock of a software company on Raging Bull, an Internet bulletin board, in 2000, without disclosing that he was being paid to do so."
This story and others linked to it on the Times site reveal how bloggers often are quietly, even secretly, paid to promote causes, political candidates, products, and in this instance, shares of stock. The former is legal but unethical. The latter is illegal, a close cousin to fraud.
The blogosphere apparently is rife with undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Is it a conflict if a restaurant reviewer gets free meals? If a travel story stemmed from a free trip? If a theater reviewer gets free tickets?
Mainstream journalism tradition answers with a big "YES," it is a conflict. Because it can influence coverage.
The Times story and subsequent links focus on politics, and how liberal bloggers were on the payroll of candidates they were promoting or not criticizing. Conservatives likely are doing it too.
Then there's the firewall that should exist between advertising and news coverage, as it does in reputable mainstream media outlets, at least allegedly. Where is it in the blogosphere? Invisible?
Bloggers need to clean up their acts! A strong bloggers organization might demand, at worst, disclosure of conflicts and at best, NO conflicts. Membership in the organization would be contingent on such standards, a kind of Good Housekeeping or Consumers Report seal of approval.
Maybe then bloggers will be taken seriously by the courts and other organizations. Until then, reader beware!
--Elaine Hopkins
Comments