It’s great that you disclose your commercial links, however there is a big difference between you doing it because you are responsible, and the FTC forcing it. It’s very important that journalists understand the difference.

To quote from a comment I attempted to post at iLounge. I tried here once already, so I apologize if this shows up twice:

“This is great news, if we don’t want free speech or individual rights.

It has come to a point where few people understand the line between freedom and protection, on the one hand, and government overstepping its bounds and violating our rights, on the other. Without this understanding, free speech is doomed and so are the rest of our rights.

If someone makes a statement in an online review regarding a product and fails to disclose payment from a third party it does not violate my rights, because I am free to make up my mind either way based on the information that *is* provided. Failing to provide information is not a falsehood, nor does it necessarily constitute fraud, which is the only legitimate reason to investigate it. I can simply *not accept it*, if I choose.

If I want to ask the blogger about their relation to the companies involved I can do that, and they can either tell the truth, not answer, or answer falsely which would be fraud and could be prosecuted.

It is not a journalist’s *duty to provide information* that I need to make a decision simply because they choose to blog on a topic; to impose this sort of positive obligation on media outlets is to make them a veritable slave to others. If the government steps over this line and forces media to provide information, it is government that has committed a transgression, not the blogger. In such a case, government has used force against a citizen who was not violating anyone’s rights. That is the definition of the violation of freedom and of individual rights: unprovoked use of force.

The line in the sand that is becoming obscured is that individuals should be free to say as little or as much as they wish, provide they do not make fraudulent claims. Otherwise, government should have no say and take no action whatsoever. Once this line is crossed, there is literally no significant principle standing in the way of government with regard to written content. Anything the public does not like, and tells government they should have, can be forced out of us.

What if regulators think that political writers should be forced to disclose their membership to past political organizations, because the public “needs” that information to make an informed decision? What if regulators think scientific publications should be forced to provide alternative theories, because the public “needs” all the facts to make a decision? What if regulators decide that companies need to forced to provide information against the products they are marketing, so that we can make a “balanced” decision. Oh, wait, they already have to do that

Please, learn about individual rights, free speech, and fight for it. Free speech in electronic media is at stake.

See:
Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_freespeech”

Jeff Montgomery
http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/

It has come to a point where few people understand the line between freedom and protection, on the one hand, and government overstepping its bounds and violating our rights, on the other. Without this understanding, free speech is doomed and so are the rest of our rights.

If someone makes a statement in an online review regarding a product and fails to disclose payment from a third party it does not violate my rights, because I am free to make up my mind either way based on the information that *is* provided. Failing to provide information is not a falsehood, nor does it necessarily constitute fraud, which is the only legitimate reason to investigate it. I can simply *not accept it*, if I choose.

If I want to ask the blogger about their relation to the companies involved I can do that, and they can either tell the truth, not answer, or answer falsely which would be fraud and could be prosecuted.

It is not a journalist’s *duty to provide information* that I need to make a decision simply because they choose to blog on a topic; to impose this sort of positive obligation on media outlets is to make them a veritable slave to others. If the government steps over this line and forces media to provide information, it is government that has committed a transgression, not the blogger. In such a case, government has used force against a citizen who was not violating anyone’s rights. That is the definition of the violation of freedom and of individual rights: unprovoked use of force.

The line in the sand that is becoming obscured is that individuals should be free to say as little or as much as they wish, provide they do not make fraudulent claims. Otherwise, government should have no say and take no action whatsoever. Once this line is crossed, there is literally no significant principle standing in the way of government with regard to written content. Anything the public does not like, and tells government they should have, can be forced out of us.

What if regulators think that political writers should be forced to disclose their membership to past political organizations, because the public “needs” that information to make an informed decision? What if regulators think scientific publications should be forced to provide alternative theories, because the public “needs” all the facts to make a decision? What if regulators decide that companies need to forced to provide information against the products they are marketing, so that we can make a “balanced” decision. Oh, wait, they already have to do that

Please, learn about individual rights, free speech, and fight for it. Free speech in electronic media is at stake.

See:
Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_freespeech

Jeff Montgomery
http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/

I agree it is not as clear as it needs to be. I’m thinking I probably need to add some things to my own disclosure policy, like the things I’ve done / received as an ADE and now a GCT.

To be called a “consultant,” does money have to change hands? For those of us who are Discovery Educators, for example, and attend special events where Discovery pays for our hotel and meals, and engages us in focus-group situations, does that make us consultants?

What about if I’m invited to s conference to present and the conference owner pays for my airfare and hotel. Am I technically a consultant for that company?

It’s not only an issue with blogging, it’s also an issue in our jobs where conflicts of interest might occur as well.

Its unclear what’s really necessary to disclose. I wonder if anyone else struggles with this.

Before I become an educator I was a journalist and did a lot of entertainment reporting. Once, while working for a small entertainment paper in Los Angeles, I flew to NY, was picked up by a limo, and stayed at a very nice hotel all paid for by at least one movie studio. This was (and I believe is) a common practice. While there I had to go see a couple of movies that were going to be released in the following weeks and I conducted interviews with several of the actors. I then went home (eventually – we were stuck in NY for two extra days because of a blizzard) and wrote articles about the movies and actors for my paper.

Is the FCC working on the assumption that the general public knows that this is how it works with entertainment reporting? What if an entertainment blogger gets the same treatment that I listed above? Are they in a different category than those who work for print, radio or television?