Disclosing the Double Standard
Posted: July 22nd, 2008 | Author: Garrett Smith | Filed under: Blogging | 10 Comments »Pat Phelan is upset.
He is mad that a videoblogger is getting paid…and not disclosing it.
Pat, don’t fret. It is not worth it my man. I am not sure when everyone decided that the Internet was pure and full of goodness; that the purveyors of it followed some sort of golden path of righteousness.
Honestly, I assume that everyone is getting paid (in some way, shape or form) to write online. It might be cash, it might be in gaining connections, it might be indirectly through a sale consummated as a result of someone “finding you” online. Pat, this is not an attack on you, I know you do not take direct advertisers on your blog, but how many people have you met, befriended, had write about you, your company, your products and services as a result of your writing online? You might not be getting paid directly, but your efforts are indirectly rewarded.
Why is there a different standard being upheld for direct and indirect payments?
Now, I try to be transparent when I speak about who I work for or advertisers that sponsor this site, but how come we, as bloggers, are held to a different set of standards than say, magazines, newspapers, and analyst firms who write and give awards to those that pay them? I know of tons of companies that do this (yes, even those in the VoIP industry). You do not see the Wall Street Journal disclosing that Verizon is an advertiser every time they write an article about them do you?
There is a double standard at play here because we are not big media and it is bull.
Writing about who “pays your bills” or has the potential to, is not new and it is not going to stop. Everyone has a motive for writing. We all get paid in some way. No one works for free. What is wrong with that?
Well put Garrett.
@ Garrett –> I like the new site logo – Cool stuff
@Andrew
I hope all is well. Thanks for the thumbs up!
@Mike
I figure people would like that more than my ugly mug
Love the post, Garrett, but I’m on the flip side of your argument. Have a look at the latest thread of comments on Pat’s post between me and PhoneBoy.
Great post …and the logo -I can’t decide if it bites more on Twisted Sister’s or Metallica’s (or is it Iron Maiden?).
@Jon:
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with me, however, I stick by my guns in regards to the hypocrisy of holding bloggers to a different set of standards because blogs started as amateur journalism and now that people who are passionate about a topic, or knowledgeable, or entertaining writers are getting paid, they are being raked over the coals.
With few exceptions, I take issue with any blogger who criticizes another blogger who gets paid. Jon, just take a look at our relationship for a second to see how everyone is getting paid.
I work for VoIP Supply. I start a blog. I join the conversation. The “club” of VoIP bloggers embraces me. We chat, we meet, we eat dinner, we have drinks. You link to my stories, you write about the company I work for. No money changed hands, but didn’t I get “paid?” I think so.
Not that this is true, but what if I was compensated by VoIP Supply for every post I got written about us…should I be disclosing on my blog that I write for connections, who in turn will write about my employer, who will in turn pay me?
Do not get me wrong here, I disclose when necessary.
I don’t take straight cash for a post (and if I did I would say it is a paid review). But I take offense to the point you make about journalists being trained professionals (implying that bloggers are…well amateurs) because journalists and their employers are worse than bloggers.
How many great “products of the year” have you seen that A) haven’t hit the market, B) suck and C) have a “processing fee” attached? That’s not wrong? That’s not pay for coverage?
I know first hand about professional journalism and the pay for coverage scam because these publications hound me daily to advertise. Guess what their sales guy’s lead is…
Garrett, Advertise in and I will guarantee you editorial coverage. In fact if you I will make sure you get X number of articles every month! That’s ads plus coverage for one price! No brainer right Garrett?
So Jon, how come these publications aren’t being called out? Do you not find the above offensive? I do. In fact I find it much more offensive than the little guy doing it, because at the end of the day, it is these “professional” organizations who have created this model, not bloggers.
Oh, wait, I remember why no one says anything about these organizations…they are paying everyone not to talk about it.
@D thanks. It is indeed Metallica inspired. I decided that I needed a bit more of the “ass kicker” in me to come through in my logo.
@Garrett,
I may be wrong, but the article you link to at the beginning seems to concentrate not on being paid, but rather not DISCLOSING being paid when what you’re writing about is the outfit that pays you. I refer specifically to the following paragraph:
“Here is a blogger doing a post on my favorite site where she compares the company that is paying her to two of its competitors and doesn’t disclose to the writer of the article Jason Kincaid that Flixwagon are paying her fees to do this.”
i.e., basic conflict of interest/lack of neutrality that all normal journalistic sources are obligated to disclose. If a writer for Newsweek writes a glorious review of a product but fails to disclose that they have a stake in that company and are caught at it, you bet they’ll be raked over the coals by their peers, and well they should be. It’s called journalistic integrity.
Your argument rings hollow in that light, but then, you seem to be focusing on the general concept of being paid as a blogger, either directly or indirectly, which is not what I took away from that article.
And just to be clear, saying that company XYZ advertises in your magazine/blog/whatever isn’t really necessary since ads are visible. Being paid behind the scenes, sponsorship, etc., is not. THAT is a rather important difference.
From Merriam-Webster, disclosure, n., “the act or an instance of disclosing : exposure.” This leads to disclosing, which leads to disclose, transitive verb, “… 2 a: to expose to view … c: to make known or public ”
Ads are public (otherwise they’d be pretty darn useless). Sponsorships/salaries typically are not.
Final point: the use of the argument “well everyone else does it” doesn’t make what you’re arguing for any more right. It’s the argument of a child. You are absolutely right that there are “professional” journalists who are paid for their reviews or otherwise engage in, well, sh*ty behavior. Trying to argue you should be able to do something improper because they do is just silly. “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi
@Frank:
My argument is that “professional journalists” take the same offers and do the same exact things as many bloggers, yet only bloggers are outed.
Why is that?