Blogging Ethics: Why Blog ‘Disclosure’ is NO Panacea
“Wouldn’t it be nice…” The Beach Boys sang it…the blogosphrere is living it. After all, wouldn’t it be nice if blogs and blogger ethics were only a question of “disclosure”?
Michael TechCrunch Arrington on how to deal with conflicts: “I say disclose them and move on.”
Not so fast, warns Josh Read/WriteWeb Catone: “sometimes I think bloggers take disclosures too far.”
To “disclose or not to disclose, that is the blogger ethics question”? Perhaps for many in the blogosphere, but it is the wrong one, if ethics is the core issue.
In commenting on Federated Media’s new video blogging initiative (SEE John Battelle vs. AOL Weblogs? Federated Media Wants Video Link Blogging Empire), Dave Winer hints at how “disclosure” is but a red herring:
There are some things you shouldn’t do because if you were to disclose them, your readers would think what you’re writing here is ad copy, not facts and uninterested opinion…There’s a lot of really questionable practices around FM. I have my doubts about any publication that’s associated with them.
(Winer apparently is suspending his doubts vs. a vs. lead FM network blog TechCrunch, though, to serve as “expert” on behalf of the TechCrunch 20 Conference)
Integrity ought to be the operative ethical blogging principle, NOT disclosure.
Does blog disclosure of advertiser relationships really risk bordering on “the absurb” as Catone intones?:
Bloggers nearly universally seem to think that they must disclose advertising relationships when writing about companies that they run ads for. We disclose advertiser relationships here at Read/WriteWeb, though you’ll notice that I didn’t disclose — until now — that Federated Media handles some of our advertising. This is something that I personally think borders on the absurd. Sure some people might be conflicted about biting the hand that feeds them, so to speak, and writing negatively about an advertiser. But journalism has long been an advertising supported medium, and the relationship between writers and advertisers is obvious to readers.
WRONG! Just ask the American Society of Business Publication Editors; I had the pleasure of hearing the ASBPE reaffirm how “ethics guide transparency” at its conference in New York City this week. In fact, the ASBPE “Guide to Preferred Editorial Practices” was the “schwag” that the organization gave out to attendees.
The ASPBE ethical guidelines on “Advertisement Adjacencies”:
Generally, an advertisement should not appear next to related editorial, to avoid the appearance of partiality or advertiser involvement. Exceptions include buyers’ guides, directories, annuals, or other ad-sponsored sections or supplements.
Where appropriate, it is preferable to use generic names of products or services in editorial. When product names are mentioned in editorial material, the trade name alone should be used, without trademark and similar symbols, and capitalized to show that the name is a proper noun.
All advertising should have a design different from editorial, at least in typeface and layout. Advertisements that may be confused for editorial content should be clearly labeled at the top of the advertisement with the word “advertising,” “advertisement,” or similar designation, but never the word “advertorial” or similarly confusing terminology.
Catone’s “ins and outs of disclosure” assures that “You’ll never see Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News conclude a story about Ford Motor company by saying that Ford advertises on the NBC family of networks; He doubles-down on “evidence” of mainstream media non-disclosure:
The New York Times doesn’t stop to disclose that the movie they’re reviewing has a display ad in their Arts section. In fact, the screenshot below depicts the Times’ Arts web page today. Notice the review of the “Bourne Ultimatum” right next to an advert for the very same movie. The review was favorable, and didn’t include any disclosures, but I don’t think anyone thinks that the paper was shilling for ad dollars.
If you say so, Josh! Nevertheless, Facebook can attest to advertiser discomfort at any APPEARANCE of inpropriety:
BBC News: First Direct, Vodafone, Virgin Media, the AA, Halifax and the Prudential have all withdrawn Facebook ads. Virgin said it had to “protect its brand”.
Halifax said the position of ads on the site “is such that it may appear that we support the owners of specific pages. This is not the case.”
At the ASBPE conference Thursday, EContent Editor Michelle Manafy underscored the unethical “appearance” minefiled advertising adjancencies can represent. Despite strict separation of “church and state” (editorial and sales) at EContent, mechanisms are in place to prevent ad placements that could provoke reader suspicions of editorial malfeasance.
The ASBPE conference also rallied against the deceptive nature of sponsored links embedded in online editorial.
Nevertheless, in touting disclosure as the ethical blogging route, Steven Spalding ”discloses” his writing is infused with ”in-text advertising”:
I do not have full control over the ads that are served by these networks so I do not officially endorse any content served by them.
All is blogging kosher then? NO!
The ASBPE Code of Ethics is firm: “Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold.”
Precisely; I have analyzed the scorge of IntelliTXT and the impending scourge of Google CPA embedded text link format ads in depth: Google Exec Skirts CPA Advertising Evil and Google PPA Advertorial: The Next PayPerPost?
Bottom blogging line: Disclosure is NOT an ethics panacea.
FOR MORE ON BLOGGING “ETHICS” SEE: John Battelle vs. AOL Weblogs? Federated Media Wants Video Link Blogging Empire
PLUS: Norman Pearlstine ‘Excited’ by a Rupert Murdoch Led Dow Jones
CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN