Do We Need an Advertorial Badge of Conduct?
Of course we don’t. But it does strike me as odd that many of the same characters in the ‘tropolis who criticized – and openly mocked – Tim O’Reilly’s suggestion of a blogging code of conduct – are now criticizing Mike and Om and Paul and Fred (Abbey Blog?), as well as FM, with such abandon and sanctimony.
The central message of the blogging code of conduct story, you will recall, was that a code of conduct is a bad idea, because: free, unrestricted speech is good, the reader can make their own decisions about what to read and what not to read, blogs are merely blogs (and not traditional media outlets, ‘with all of their rules, man’), the blogosphere is a new media paradigm and as such shouldn’t be regulated, and so on – you get the picture. How odd now to see many of those principles shuffled out of the way of a good opportunity to spend a little quality time on that high horse.
This is the Trackback URI
/images/rss.jpg)
What I said is that everyone should have his own code and stick to it — and when you don’t, that is, by its definition, selling out. And we all must be aware that we will be judged by our actions. Pretty straightforward, I’d say.
Ya know, I thought Jeff’s and other’s points in regards to the ‘code of conduct’ were very straightforward. Same on this.
Sure, Jeff. You also said that you pushed back on FM, “telling them that this would reflect poorly on the bloggers who do it, possibly on bloggers as a whole, on the network itself, and in the end on the advertisers. But they kept trying to push the boundaries, because that’s what advertisers and thus sales people do.”
Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of the point you made in the next para. After all, if it’s up the individual blogger, how could it reflect poorly on the “network itself” or on “bloggers as a whole”.
And of course, later on, you said “Our readers should not be confused about the source of what they read. If it is paid for, that should be labeled as advertising. In editorial environments, our voice and our space cannot be bought — or it is not editorial; it is, by definition, advertising. Not every media property needs to follow these rules; entertainment, for example, is not editorial. But this is the essential rule that allows us to accept advertising to support publications without losing our credibility.”
Which is also saying a lot more than ’stick to your own code’, I’d say.
And of course you lump Mike and Om in with Paul and Fred in the same analysis, even though 2 of them are simply guys who blog and 2 are guys who report news etc. etc.
And of course: “And I would further suggest that the editorial voice and space of Federated bloggers is not for sale.”
And then this debate with yourself: “So now I’m disagreeing with myself. In that last email, I put the onus on Federated to come up with that policy. And though I still think that would be principled and wise, I shift at the top of this too-long post when I say that I now believe it’s the bloggers who must make these calls. That’s because advertisers will be advertisers; they will try to push for more integration with us (and we should beware taking that as flattery). And sales people will be sales people; they will try hard to get the sale. So we bloggers are left, inevitably, with the need to say no. I also generally oppose efforts to create omnibus codes.”
Hey, some say it’s a tough issue, but no fair taking all sides of it in the same post!
So – pretty not straighforward, I’d say.
I’ll say one thing, though – it did kill them on the ‘net – happily only for a day or so, though. Nick Denton, who competes with Om and Mike for scoops, pulled the trigger. Nice bit of work, that – I can’t remember – is that irony, or is it editorial bias?