|
It's kind of tough to be a news consumer these days, especially if you're exploring all the offerings available online.
And if you go online looking for advice from the blogsphere, it's hard to tell if what you're reading is the result of an impartial review or if the writer has merely been paid off by some marketing company to write something nice about a product.
From the New York Times:
The Federal Trade Commission is aware of the problem, and has revised its rules to require bloggers, like us, to disclose if they're getting any goodies from companies whose products are being reviewed.
The F.T.C. said that beginning on Dec. 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently. The new rules also take aim at celebrities, who will now need to disclose any ties to companies, should they promote products on a talk show or on Twitter. A second major change, which was not aimed specifically at bloggers or social media, was to eliminate the ability of advertisers to gush about results that differ from what is typical — for instance, from a weight loss supplement.
Here at LouisvilleMojo, CEO Keith Ringer said the new rules are a good thing.
"People who are blogging under the guise of content generation who are actually doing it for promotional purposes should be required to disclose it," he said.
Of course, anyone can generate a new blog here at Mojo, and the new rules currently don't require that the company police its independent bloggers, due to the common carrier provision of the law.
"We encourage self-promotional bloggers to disclose their intent and we discourage bloggers who have promotional intent but don't disclose that," he said.
The new rules will likely poke a hole in some Internet-based business plans. Some blogs exist for the purpose of getting free stuff from companies. But those who expect to build credibility as news providers must abide by the rules.
Rules, which we should add, have been in place in traditional media for a long time.
|
|
|
|
ADD A COMMENT
|
Tom Johnson
wed oct 28 2009
at 12:18 pm
·
 |
 |
 |
 |
I disagree that similar rules have been in place for traditional media. The limits on gifts and gratuities in traditional media are entirely self-imposed. Governmental restraints are rightly seen as a violation of the First Amendment. Bloggers are singled out because new media confuse the establishment and the applicability of the First Amendment to "citizen journalists" has not been adjudicated.
The intent of the regs is to eliminate truly egregious fraud -- blogs, for example, wholly written as <i>sub rosa promotional devices. The new regs are so broadly written, however, that any un-revealed remuneration -- a sample copy of a book, a media buffet, free admission to a theater -- could be construed as a bribe and violation punishable by law. Traditional media accepting the same exact "compensation" would be subject to no such sanction. When was that last time you saw a movie review that noted the screening was free, or read a shelter magazine that noted that they like a particular chair because the editor has one -- courtesy of the manufacturer -- in his living room at home? I'm guessing you've never seen disclaimers of that sort, even though those things happen every day.
Also, for the record, I don't think those actions are necessarily corrupt. They're just part of the business. If the media had to start paying full market value for everything it covers or reviews, most things would never get any attention at all. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
More Stories in tech & video games
|
 |
|
2
Rick Redding