- comment
F.T. Rea - body
- The blogosphere, as it has been, has evolved from one thing to another for over a decade, as it became more open to the public. (My savvy son-in-law is my main source for that smattering of an overview.)
Now, for the political bloggers who want to move onto the next level, being able to influence a wider audience than their friends, there needs to be a code rooted in logic and transparency. Standards need to be developed.
With that in mind, blogging as an independent voice -- under false pretenses -- is, quite simply, what it is.
How to write the rules won’t be easy. But for those of us who want credibility, while using the Internet's vast potential to dupe the easily duped, we’re going to have to earn it by proving to the cynical public that we deserve it.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- In that scenario, since the blog came first, then the blog remains predominant.
However, if X blogs on the professional interests of Y, then X has a clear responsibility to disclose that information.
Now if Y explicitly tells X not to reveal that relationship, then we have an issue of transparency (given my three criteria: transparency, authenticity, and containment).
Transparency being blocked, that immediately casts aspersions on authenticity. However, the two are not mutually conditional terms. You (JadedJD) for example, have restrictions on your transparency, but it is made up for in (a) a disclosure as to why that is necessary which (b) allows the reader to determine the authenticity of your commentary.
I view the three criteria of transparency, authenticity, and containment to be binding on both the blogger and the reader.
I think this is about as bright a line as is going to be created, not only because it gives the blogger something to pre-consider before they post, but also because it gives the reader a standard by which they should judge what they are reading.
My US$0.02 anyhow.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- However, if X blogs on the professional interests of Y, then X has a clear responsibility to disclose that information.
I should point out that this interest should be a direct, and not indirect interest. Blogging on a specific case you are involved in would be a violation of trust, while blogging on the nature of jurisprudence would not.
On the poltical end, blogging on say the state of poltiics or a specific issue would be just fine. Blogging on behalf of your employer (be it a candidate, a PAC, an organization) would be a violation of trust unless it was clearly disclosed, and then on a case-by-case basis.
It would be like a stock broker cheering on Pepsi while owning thousands of shares of Pepsi stock. Sure he could comment on the market as a whole, but he'd better disclose the specific stocks he owns so that I - as a consumer of information - can discern whether that information is trustworthy.
I think a boundary can be defined that is clear enough to allow for discourse, but not vague enough so that others push the boundaries.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I'd disclose that on a case-by-case basis as well.
Of course, what we want to avoid is a situation where people become too hypersensitive about disclosure. That above all else may be where the fuzzy line can be ill-defined.
- comment Jason Kenney
- body
- Velvet Elvis - I think those are the points Shaun's specifically targeting, when a pseudonymous blogger plays cheerleader for a cause that is paying them but does not disclose, there is an ethical issue. And anonymous comments create the same dilemma. Actually, a greater one than using a pseudonym, because there is no accountability or paper trail of thought. At least when someone is using a false name regularly they build up a body of work to judge them by.
- comment Mountain Dragon
- body
- So, in that same vein of reasoning, should a blogger that is not anonymous and blogs in support of a cause that he is compensated for, reveal that he is indeed employed by that cause (such as the example Shaun gives with the stockbroker and Pepsi)?
In this case, is it still not an issue of transparency?
And in speaking of the political arena...blogging on the state of politics or a specific issue as mentioned would be "just fine." But when that specific issue or state would further the cause, or say the re-election, of the PAC, organization or candidate in this instance, shouldn't the blogger disclose his paid position in terms of that transparency and trust?
Michael
The Musgrave Watch
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Heh heh heh...
If you're speaking directly to my status as campaign manager for Marilyn Musgrave, then if I comment on issues directly related to the campaign I am obligated to (and will) announce that position when posting on things relevant to things in Colorado's 4th -- though I doubt I ever will comment on CO 4 here.
And in speaking of the political arena...blogging on the state of politics or a specific issue as mentioned would be "just fine." But when that specific issue or state would further the cause, or say the re-election, of the PAC, organization or candidate in this instance, shouldn't the blogger disclose his paid position in terms of that transparency and trust?
The answer to this is direct and indirect interest. Indirect interest would be metaissues that transcend. So if you work for CATO and comment on taxes, I don't see where that fits the bill (unless you push a specific policy agenda of CATO -- then disclose).
Direct interests would be events specific to the campaign (i.e. the dog poop incident), where if I were to comment on such things, I would have to mention that I have a vested interest in promoting such a story as CM for Musgrave. The reader can best determine when someone crosses the line.
Still, I want to re-emphasise that we shouldn't get to the point of hyperactivity. Volunteers for a specific campaign aren't taking money, aren't being promised jobs (or better not be) and shouldn't feel pressured or obligated to disclose that kind of information.
But if you're taking money and comment specifically to the interest, then transparency is essential. Otherwise, there's a bit of deception at play... and that's no service to the public square.
Of course, in all of this we're still walking a tightrope and venturing into new territory. Blogs are unique with unique sets of issues. I've changed my laissez-faire approach somewhat since 2005's Sorenson conference (though I still believe in self-regulation). I imagine my thoughts will be refined 12 months from today as well.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I think you missed a few zeros in the BS part of that equation...
- comment Mountain Dragon
- body
- Grin! Sorry...that one went out before I'd received an e-mail response...I wouldn't have been so, umm, indirect and just come right out with it. Initially didn't want to intrude on private life - though they be professional too - matters without your prior disclosure.
I'd have to agree with that last reply, Shaun. In a paid capacity, any of us need (and should if we do wish to get any sort of trust from our readers) to completely disclose such. I also agree that the volunteer is pretty much free to not disclose as they wish. What a volunteer does on his/her own time is their business, and shouldn't reflect upon the campaign (PAC, Group, what have you) that they are a member of.
Interesting parallel here...is Ensz a paid "high-ranking" member of the Weld Dems? If so...that stands up to some serious scrutiny. However if she is just a volunteer, misguided though she may be, perhaps then the Weld Dems are shielded from her poor choices much as they would be if she were just a blogger. (I actually don't know the answer to her status). But I suppose I've really stepped in it now...pardon the pun. (Seriously though...I don't condone the poop incident one bit).
I also have to agree on the "metaissue" argument arguing for, say, pro or con on troop reductions in Iraq isn't really arguing for a particular candidate's re-election per se, though you'd need to watch any mention or suggestion of that candidate's stance or opinion on such. We can hogtie ourselves into mediocrity over such things. But one note of warning...when you take certain paid positions, you take on the certain unpleasant aspects of said positions. Political bloggers that take on paid political positions (which frankly I'm very excited about as I've mentioned) need to have full disclosure of such when blogging in the aspect of that position. I'm certain you will do so...I hope everyone else will to.
It's been a pleasure so far...
Michael
The Musgrave Watch
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Political bloggers that take on paid political positions ... need to have full disclosure of such when blogging in the aspect of that position.
Bingo.
Unfortuately there are some folks who don't get the message -- and they should be excoriated IMHO.
- comment Doogman
- body
- Excoriated?
What a lovely word.
However, 'discredited' would be my choice - anyone in the pay of an organization they're commenting for kinda blows their credibility right out the window... at least as far as I'm concerned.
The American public, unfortunately, is somewhat less discriminating as history has shown again and again.
I'd like to hope blogs would bring something to the media it's been desperately lacking for lo these many years: real perspective. Too many times flat-out lies have been propigated with a wink and a handshake between the power barons. At least with blogs, the 'little people' get their say - THAT'S AMERICA.
Of course that infuriates those that would have it otherwise, so I'm certain freedom of speech will be curtailed sharply quite soon... well, attempts will be made that is. Should work about as well as... say... Prohibition.
LMAO
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Great points, Doogman.
The one thing we would all like to avoid is a state-imposed code of ethics that protects those in power.
Government in the sunshine. That's what it's all about, and blogs provide a heck of a lot of sunshine.
12 Comments:
Now, for the political bloggers who want to move onto the next level, being able to influence a wider audience than their friends, there needs to be a code rooted in logic and transparency. Standards need to be developed.
With that in mind, blogging as an independent voice -- under false pretenses -- is, quite simply, what it is.
How to write the rules won’t be easy. But for those of us who want credibility, while using the Internet's vast potential to dupe the easily duped, we’re going to have to earn it by proving to the cynical public that we deserve it.
However, if X blogs on the professional interests of Y, then X has a clear responsibility to disclose that information.
Now if Y explicitly tells X not to reveal that relationship, then we have an issue of transparency (given my three criteria: transparency, authenticity, and containment).
Transparency being blocked, that immediately casts aspersions on authenticity. However, the two are not mutually conditional terms. You (JadedJD) for example, have restrictions on your transparency, but it is made up for in (a) a disclosure as to why that is necessary which (b) allows the reader to determine the authenticity of your commentary.
I view the three criteria of transparency, authenticity, and containment to be binding on both the blogger and the reader.
I think this is about as bright a line as is going to be created, not only because it gives the blogger something to pre-consider before they post, but also because it gives the reader a standard by which they should judge what they are reading.
My US$0.02 anyhow.
I should point out that this interest should be a direct, and not indirect interest. Blogging on a specific case you are involved in would be a violation of trust, while blogging on the nature of jurisprudence would not.
On the poltical end, blogging on say the state of poltiics or a specific issue would be just fine. Blogging on behalf of your employer (be it a candidate, a PAC, an organization) would be a violation of trust unless it was clearly disclosed, and then on a case-by-case basis.
It would be like a stock broker cheering on Pepsi while owning thousands of shares of Pepsi stock. Sure he could comment on the market as a whole, but he'd better disclose the specific stocks he owns so that I - as a consumer of information - can discern whether that information is trustworthy.
I think a boundary can be defined that is clear enough to allow for discourse, but not vague enough so that others push the boundaries.
Of course, what we want to avoid is a situation where people become too hypersensitive about disclosure. That above all else may be where the fuzzy line can be ill-defined.
In this case, is it still not an issue of transparency?
And in speaking of the political arena...blogging on the state of politics or a specific issue as mentioned would be "just fine." But when that specific issue or state would further the cause, or say the re-election, of the PAC, organization or candidate in this instance, shouldn't the blogger disclose his paid position in terms of that transparency and trust?
Michael
The Musgrave Watch
If you're speaking directly to my status as campaign manager for Marilyn Musgrave, then if I comment on issues directly related to the campaign I am obligated to (and will) announce that position when posting on things relevant to things in Colorado's 4th -- though I doubt I ever will comment on CO 4 here.
And in speaking of the political arena...blogging on the state of politics or a specific issue as mentioned would be "just fine." But when that specific issue or state would further the cause, or say the re-election, of the PAC, organization or candidate in this instance, shouldn't the blogger disclose his paid position in terms of that transparency and trust?
The answer to this is direct and indirect interest. Indirect interest would be metaissues that transcend. So if you work for CATO and comment on taxes, I don't see where that fits the bill (unless you push a specific policy agenda of CATO -- then disclose).
Direct interests would be events specific to the campaign (i.e. the dog poop incident), where if I were to comment on such things, I would have to mention that I have a vested interest in promoting such a story as CM for Musgrave. The reader can best determine when someone crosses the line.
Still, I want to re-emphasise that we shouldn't get to the point of hyperactivity. Volunteers for a specific campaign aren't taking money, aren't being promised jobs (or better not be) and shouldn't feel pressured or obligated to disclose that kind of information.
But if you're taking money and comment specifically to the interest, then transparency is essential. Otherwise, there's a bit of deception at play... and that's no service to the public square.
Of course, in all of this we're still walking a tightrope and venturing into new territory. Blogs are unique with unique sets of issues. I've changed my laissez-faire approach somewhat since 2005's Sorenson conference (though I still believe in self-regulation). I imagine my thoughts will be refined 12 months from today as well.
I'd have to agree with that last reply, Shaun. In a paid capacity, any of us need (and should if we do wish to get any sort of trust from our readers) to completely disclose such. I also agree that the volunteer is pretty much free to not disclose as they wish. What a volunteer does on his/her own time is their business, and shouldn't reflect upon the campaign (PAC, Group, what have you) that they are a member of.
Interesting parallel here...is Ensz a paid "high-ranking" member of the Weld Dems? If so...that stands up to some serious scrutiny. However if she is just a volunteer, misguided though she may be, perhaps then the Weld Dems are shielded from her poor choices much as they would be if she were just a blogger. (I actually don't know the answer to her status). But I suppose I've really stepped in it now...pardon the pun. (Seriously though...I don't condone the poop incident one bit).
I also have to agree on the "metaissue" argument arguing for, say, pro or con on troop reductions in Iraq isn't really arguing for a particular candidate's re-election per se, though you'd need to watch any mention or suggestion of that candidate's stance or opinion on such. We can hogtie ourselves into mediocrity over such things. But one note of warning...when you take certain paid positions, you take on the certain unpleasant aspects of said positions. Political bloggers that take on paid political positions (which frankly I'm very excited about as I've mentioned) need to have full disclosure of such when blogging in the aspect of that position. I'm certain you will do so...I hope everyone else will to.
It's been a pleasure so far...
Michael
The Musgrave Watch
Bingo.
Unfortuately there are some folks who don't get the message -- and they should be excoriated IMHO.
What a lovely word.
However, 'discredited' would be my choice - anyone in the pay of an organization they're commenting for kinda blows their credibility right out the window... at least as far as I'm concerned.
The American public, unfortunately, is somewhat less discriminating as history has shown again and again.
I'd like to hope blogs would bring something to the media it's been desperately lacking for lo these many years: real perspective. Too many times flat-out lies have been propigated with a wink and a handshake between the power barons. At least with blogs, the 'little people' get their say - THAT'S AMERICA.
Of course that infuriates those that would have it otherwise, so I'm certain freedom of speech will be curtailed sharply quite soon... well, attempts will be made that is. Should work about as well as... say... Prohibition.
LMAO
The one thing we would all like to avoid is a state-imposed code of ethics that protects those in power.
Government in the sunshine. That's what it's all about, and blogs provide a heck of a lot of sunshine.
Post a Comment
Home