That depends on who is paying the bills. Is it your publisher, or is it uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff?
Are you being compensated by a like-minded patron that likes your writing, or are you being spoon-fed talking points and working as a part of a coordinated wurlitzer? What are your ethical obligations about disclosure?
These are important considerations. But our right-wing brethren don’t have too much introspection, let alone any ethics.
From Howard Kurtz:
Copley News Service last week dropped Doug Bandow — who also resigned as a Cato Institute scholar — after he acknowledged taking as much as $2,000 a pop from Abramoff for up to two dozen columns favorable to the lobbyist’s clients. “I am fully responsible and I won’t play victim,” Bandow said in a statement after Business Week broke the story. “Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize.”
Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation has acknowledged taking payments years ago from a half-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff. Two of his papers, the Washington Times and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, have now dropped him. But Ferrara is unapologetic, saying: “There is nothing unethical about taking money from someone and writing an article.”
Readers might disagree on grounds that they have no way of knowing about such undisclosed payments, which seem to be an increasingly common tactic for companies trying to influence public debate through ostensibly neutral third parties. When he was a Washington lawyer several years ago, says law professor Glenn Reynolds, a telecommunications carrier offered him a fat paycheck — up to $20,000, he believes — to write an opinion piece favorable to its position. He declined.
In the case of Bandow’s columns, says Reynolds, who now writes the InstaPundit blog, “one argument is, it’s probably something he thought anyway, but it doesn’t pass the smell test to me. I wouldn’t necessarily call it criminal, but it seems wrong. People want to craft a rule, but what you really need is a sense of shame.”
Jonathan Adler, an associate law professor and National Review contributor, wrote that when he worked at a think tank, “I was offered cash payments to write op-eds on particular topics by PR firms, lobbyists or corporations several times. They offered $1,000 or more for an op-ed,” offers that Adler rejected. Blogger Rand Simberg writes that “I’ve also declined offers of money to write specific pieces, even though I agreed with the sentiment.”
My mailbox is filled with suggestions. Bloggers that want to be linked, congressional staffers that want me to know what their boss is up to, political activists, thinktanks, seminars, bills, amendments to bills, members of the site, friends, family…all send me stuff hoping to influence what I choose to write about. But, so far, no checks, or offers of money.
It’s natural that people want their point of view expressed, and it’s natural that some people are willing to pay for their point of view to be expressed. And bloggers and small-time journalists are vulnerable to making ethical lapses because they do not make much money.
I don’t make much money. But I pledge to you that I won’t accept money in return for writing about a certain topic, or to cover a topic a certain way. And if I ever receive a stipend I will disclose where the money is coming from.
I’d rather be poor and have my reputation than living in shame and self-loathing.
Maybe that is the difference between those that judge themselves by the size of their bank account and the power of their friends, and those that can find their self-worth in the honesty of their work.
Before the Plamegate and Abramoff scandals are through we are going to learn a lot about the shamelessness of the right-wing media wurlitzer.
When I want to be shameless I limit myself to asking people to visit the Booman Tribune store.
It seems to me that this issue encompasses the much wider challenge that the new media, blogs in particular, will increasingly face here in the 21st century. But I question whether the idea of “accepting money to write something” is entirely black and white in the realm of journalism. If we look at it through the lens of traditional newspaper columnists, for example, it seems quite clear that the reading public — i.e., those who pay to purchase a newspaper — have a right to expect that the writers are expressing “independent” opinions. (This applies, obviously, to staff columnists, not guest op-ed writers, who quite often are in the employ of a particular interest.) From an economic point of view, we should be able to expect that the salary of the writer is sufficient to compensate his/her job; the entire newspaper industry has been built around that model. It works in that environment, because (in principle) the sum total of inputs from numerous writers is sufficient to attract readers, and by extension advertisers.
But in the blog world, many (most) blogs are built around independent, individual commentators, whose entire livelihood may depend upon the revenue they can generate from what they, personally write. Where a larger blog can attract loyal “guest” bloggers whose own contributions are also valuable, this expands the appeal, but rarely are these guests financially compensated directly by the blog’s ads or other revenue sources.
How, then, is the blog model (particularly in the political arena) to sustain itself in the long run? There have already been a number of mini-scandals over major blogs running (or pulling) ads which have created perceived conflicts of interest. What happens when we hit the next big political cycle (more likely 2008 than 2006), and major campaigns are prepared to drop thousands, even 10s of thousands of dollars on key political blogs to try to advance their candidates’ causes? There may well be many who remain “pure” as Booman clearly intends, but many others will be very tempted to accept a quid pro quo, especially where the candidate may be already aligned with their viewpoint. And even if the “front page” blogger doesn’t touch cash-for-commentary, how is anyone to know which “guest” bloggers or diarists might be “bought”?
It’s worth keeping in mind that this is far from a “new” issue. Political journalism of the 19th and early 20th century was much more of the nature of pay-for-punditry than the “independent” model that we’ve come to treat as standard. The political parties were closely affiliated with most of the major newspapers, and it was often impossible to determine what was “pure” commentary from the spouting of the party line. I expect that the blogosphere will increasingly resemble that model, in the commercial sphere as well, as the potential impact of on-line commentary continues to rise. Perhaps a few well-established independent blogs will somehow manage to remain entirely above the fray, but I worry that this medium will struggle mightily to maintain the sense of relative innocence that we enjoy today.
yes, it is a big topic.
As for elections, I think this site should run any democratic ads, not pick and choose. People already know I am partial to Russ Feingold and that I hope Hillary does not win the nomination. People know that I like Joe Biden despite all his faults, and that I think Evan Byah is milquetoast. They know I favor Pennacchio over Casey. And I’m happy to tell you what I think of any politician.
But if Bob Casey or Evan Byah want to advertise here I’m not going to reject their ads because I don’t support their candidacies. This policy should prevent any perception that I am taking money to support one candidate over another. Some bloggers avoid endorsements. Not me. I want to endorse candidates that I can support and oppose candidates I cannot.
It’s not likely that politicians will wish to advertise on a site where they and their “positions” receive low praise levels from the blog participants.
On the other hand, it would be difficult for you to make rules regarding this without risking major change in the nature and ambience of the blog as a whole, which could of itself impact its attractiveness to politicians!
There are big decisions, but I don’t think that is one of them.
Bob Casey has already advertised here as part of a buy thru the Philly Ad network. I didn’t even realize it was a buy thru his campaign until it had been running for several days. If he decides not to advertise here in the future I won’t mind a bit. And it probably will be indicative of better discipline the media arm of his campaign.
we see just how disciplined the media arms of Mr. Biden and Mr. Lieberman’s campaigns are.
Not to mention the Democratic party itself, which also receives its share of faint praise from many of your more eloquent contributors, including, on occasion, you! 😀
As long as we avoid all fluoridation we will not need to worry about any depletion of our precious bodily fluids, Ductape.
I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love…Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake…but I do deny them my essence.
Which in practical terms, means that we need not search for conspiracies where they do not exist. The thing I worry about is that the left will devour itself with suspicions and accusations. The right wing is currently suffering the consequences of real conflicts of interests and ethical lapses. We will not be immune from these, but hopefully we will be less prone to them.
relax regarding your larger concern until the US gets a “left.”
Hey, I thought I was the Left.
The issues of money, political influence and principle in blogging is going to be prime for action in shaping future laws and policy.
Booman, this is your site….your place you have made for us. It is up to you to define your ethics. If you want others of your site to help define it, then it must be known for all, to digest to what your ethics is. It has to be known ahead of time so no one will call you on it. All you have to do it be upfront with us, as a whole. (just like your only requirement is not to be a prick) I do congratulate you for what you so far have done with it. I believe in you enough to trust your judgment call on this. However, if I do disagree with you on something, I have enough personal ethics to say so and not go behind your back and say to others my disagreement on the ethics of your decision. The blogosphere is a new medium for us all to consider as to what is to be the ethicical behavior of most things.(which now involves journalism) I have read it over the past year, since this site has been made for us. Many have complimented you on your ethical behavior and at times have had to call you on your judgment on this. (I consider this growing) It usually works out for the best. If we do have a problem with it, as a group, I feel we have enough faith in you and your cabinet, to talk to you and the group about it.
Now What is your ethics? Can you say it is different than that of other sites, be it progressive or democratic or republican? I applaud the group and you for your most honorable behavior here. I really do think I understand your position, ethically, morally and otherwise. If I should be wrong, I stand to be corrected, by you or anyone else.
I have to leave now for I have my Christmas day with my family today. I hope I have a chance to check in later on today with you all. For you see, I am ethically bonded to be on call as well. Unless someone is in a life or death state, I will do my job later on in the day. I have set my ethics right up front for everyone to know where I stand on this of today’s being for me and the job I do. I could be a prick and refuse to do call all month long. But you see there is no one…really, no one to do my job, so I have to set my standards for during the holidays and my behavior, trying to be fair and accommodate everyone in concern.
I don’t know.
One reason that I like blogging is that I can write about what I want, and I can write what I want in the way that I want.
So, taking money to promote some politician or policy that I do not like would destroy the whole purpose. But what about taking money to write about stuff I support? Well, if I wasn’t inclined to write about it, that too would destroy the purpose. Suddenly I would have homework.
So, I am basically tempermentally disinclined to enter into these arrangements.
But, if someone wants to help lift me out of poverty (and based on my earnings this year I am impoverished) I am willing to listen. My ethics demand that I disclose any outside financial support. And my temperment requires that it not come with any strings attached that would require me to support any candidate or policy, or that I would have to cover certain stories.
That means that I would not accept $2,000 to write an editorial opposing private accounts for social security without disclosing that fact. And I wouldn’t accept the deal because I don’t want to have others tell me what to write.
If it was disclosed I don’t think it would be unethical. Just boring.
All I have to go on as far as this blog is concerned is Booman’s word that he will disclose any and all payments from politians in the up coming election cycles.That’s good enough for me. All I can ever judge a person by is past behavior and so far I have seen nothing but the highest of integrity demonstrated by the Booman and trust that he will continue to be up front with us.
.
From Realms of David Keating, Stephen Moore, Grover Norquist, Richard Viguerie and Eberle Communications …
The Official Score by the Chief Actuary of Social Security
Peter Ferrara: Too Busy Being a Hack
Peter Ferrara is Director of the International Center for Law and Economics and President of the Virginia Club for Growth. He served as a senior staff member in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has practiced law with firms on Wall Street and in Washington, DC.
Ferrara wrote the first book for the Cato Institute providing a comprehensive intellectual foundation for a personal account option for Social Security – Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction (1980). He has continued to write on that concept in further books, studies and articles for Cato, the Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Family Research Council, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, and a wide range of other institutions and publications.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
.
The long-term economic health of the United States is threatened by $53 trillion in government debts and liabilities that start to come due in four years when baby boomers begin to retire. (Related graphic: U.S. economy threatened by aging of America)
One nation, under debt
2002 Report: The Retirement Crisis and 401(k)
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
I don’t even care if you are paid to write about a certain topic. Hell, I am… my publisher pays me to write my books and approves the topics.
But that’s all up-front. Nothing hidden.
Take money from anyone, but make it clear that you have taken money.
If my books were underwritten by something called The DVD Promotion Society or The Committee to Expand the Blogosphere and I pretended that Praeger (my supposedly disinterested publisher) was the only financially responsible party, that would be a problem. If, however, I clearly acknowledged the support in the book, there wouldn’t be a conflict.
The question is one of knowledge. As Ferrara says, there is nothing wrong about taking money for writing. What’s wrong is taking money and hiding the fact–or pretending that someone other than the real source of the money is paying.
There are also wider issues. Sure journalists take money from their publishers, but who are these publishers? Who controls the media? In many ways control of the media gives you a lot more power than just passing a few bucks to influence a column. We should not limit criticism to just the latter but ry to open up the whole “who really controls the media” question.
Well, do you sacrifice one for all or all for one? Does it matter if anyone does things that is not good? Is it breaking the law? Does it involve the policy and procedure of your company or your own business? (like in arthur anderson/enron) We all have a job to define what is ethical and what is lawful…Does it really matter if one takes money from someone for doing a job? and what kind of job is it that is not for personal gain or to harm others with doing said job?
Do we need a line drawn in the sand to define what we all believe in? Who is the defining person and does this person meet all of our groups requirements? There is lots to be considered here for much of what has gone on in our own world. I think, personally many have let others do the defining and now we are upset with the defination. What is it we must do now?
and such a bounteous tray of appetizers for discussion that go way beyond the subject of journalism, that I think you should make it into a whole diary!
Thanks DTF. Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. What now? Do we need a defination of what ETHICS is or do we have, each of us, our own defination, not WEBSTERS. What do we do now…do we all sacrifice all for just one?…Do we just let one person slide then get our panties in a wad over a few now? Let me ask someone to define ethics for me, if you will. Then and only then will we all be on the same page. I might consider writing a diary on it soon. I studied ethics in college. I think many have but have forgotten the lessons learned. What is in your heart today? Does it mean ethics or does it mean what your company says it is? Can one intertwine both the company’s and personal ethics? Does it border whistleblowing? Does it border quiting your job, if the company does not meet your standards? If you are CEO of your company, do you, alone, define ethics for your company/org? To me Ethics is a big arena. It involves many feelings and actions.
What is your ethics? NOt just you, DTF, but all of us..what is our ethics……Thank you for your consideration.
to incite ME to write a diary on it!
And it just might work. 😉
:O)…hugs….am waiting to read it too…..
I have been a published writer in a variety of media for over twenty years. Every writer has a bias, some are just better at hiding it. However if there is any chance that the reader may be confused about yours, I think that the only answer is disclosure.
Some television news outlets will interject a statement like: “….is owned by General Electric” when a story might be compromised–or considered compromised–by the entity that pays the bills.
Whether it’s mentioning your free meal in a travel article or that joe’s thinktank is underwriting the funding for your book–you must give your readers the parameters for its creation.
I have been zealous about protecting my independence over the years. Like anyone, I sure could have used the money or offers that would have compromised my reader’s trust.
I salute BooMan for trying, as I am, to remain ethical in a complicated and low-paying industry.
Booman, I wonder if you will have any reaction to individual diarists that are employed by a campaign and regularly write diaries promoting their candidate? There’s more than one way to advertise on scoop blogs. Will the fact that a writer is employed by a campaign make any difference?
On the one hand, I would fear the diaries being taken over by paid campaign professionals. On the other, I would hope that most of us would be actively involved in various campaigns and would write about it. And there might be a fine line between those who volunteer to do so and those who get paid. And I’m not sure getting paid by a campaign should mean that people can’t write about the candidate.
I’d like to rely on the community to detect bullshit.
Is a diary spam? Or is it just a paid staffer advocating for his/her candidate and sticking around to answer questions?
I do not like diary police. But some policing is required.
In the end, we rely on people’s limited energy. To truly fool us a person would have to spend a lot of time on the site just to trick us into thinking they were an agendaless poster.
The thing I worry about is that the left will devour itself with suspicions and accusations.
Why? In the few instances here where accusations have flown, the self-policing and research of the community invariably squeezes the data until the facts emerge. More than a few folk around here have extremely fine-tuned shit detectors, and have a tendency to burn straw-men. I think that environment prevails on most well-known blogs.
What are you seeing/hearing out there that causes the worry?
I see a lot. But the main worry is that we will wind up fighting among ourselves over what a blogger is and what a blogging community is, and what it means to be an advocate for the party versus a paid advocate for the party. etc. etc. etc.
And with money flowing in people will fight over it and look for the worst motives behind every posting by every rival blogger. And spread innuendo.
Actually, I know this is going to happen. It’s already started.
But I am not interested in all that drama. I’m interested in feeding myself and I am interested in frog-marching, and I want this site to continue to be a fun place to spend time.
Yes!
people to understand where one crosses over into unethical territory because their “job” crosses lines all the time. For instance, the lawyer that did the op-ed against visa and mastercard when his client was suing the outfits had really more than two jobs going – the lawyering was one. But he also was politicking and trolling for new customers. And the journalists taking money for articles, were they freelancers and getting more than one payback for one article and only thinking in terms of product?
What I am saying is that we seem to be less likely to be ethical when it comes to making money if we have more than one image we are projecting.
Booman is pretty safe as a blogger, but if like Kos he decides to consult then the lines might be blurred. Bostonjoe as blogger and lawyer may not run into too many problems, unless, of course, he takes on Delay as a client! I truly think the Coulters, Malkins and Limbaughs have sacrificed integrity on the alter of partisanship. It is more important to them to score points for their “side” than to be truthful which cracks any journalistic integrity into pieces.
Given how broke and on the edge most political Bloggers are I have no problems with Bloggers accepting money to help a candidate that they would likely support anyways.
I do think that there needs to be 100% diclosure. Even for those that have just “volunteered for a campaign”.
You can’t argue with facts, but the disclosure does allow the readers to better understand the Bloggers positions.
I am not saying that there has to be an “Advertisement disclaimer” but it should be noted at the begining or the end of a diary/article/etc. if there is a tie-in to a campaign, either paid or volunteer.
IMHO, at every opportunity we should try to set the ethical bar higher than it really needs to be to make an honest point to the media, which seems to have given up on all ethical standards.
Thanks for making clear your position (again, lol) BooMan. It sets a good example for others to follow.
Let me ask an honest question about ethics.
How are they defined when a guest ‘analyst’ who profits from indirect sales presents only one side of an argument or misrepresents pertinent details and is hailed as a professional expert ‘voice of truth’ in the field?
Ethics I think are in the eye of the beholder..everyone has a slightly different idea about what constitutes the whole ethical rehlm.(how the hell do you spell relm?)
All boo can do is state his own ethics regarding how he blogs and why. As for being paid for anything-that always becomes a fine line which again everyone may have different ideas on how that should work.
Being poor is no fun and if you see no end in sight too many bad things or decisions can happen I believe. I have no problem with boo being paid for various things he may do concerning this blog as long as he continues with his statement that he will disclose that information to us. Being paid in itself isn’t unethical it’s the how/why and secrecy that can be the unethical part.
Yes, there are plenty of gray areas. But the basic journalistic ethic is simple and solid–as solid as a Wall.
The Wall is what we used to call it. At my first paper it literally was a wall, between the editorial and the advertising departments.
This is the first principle: editorial is editorial, advertising is advertising. If it’s advocating a product, candidate or position for which you are directly paid—and would not be paid if you took the opposite view—then it’s advertising.
The Wall has many chinks in it now, especially in the MSM. But blogs have an opportunity to rebuild it. It’s essential for reader trust.
Many people today don’t understand the Wall. They can’t even get their minds around the concept. To people like Ferrara, everything is advertising. Just as to the Bushites, everything is spin. But his position is as antithetical to any concept of journalism as Bush’s secret spying is to the Constitution. Both are impeachable offenses.
I’m sure there are blog posters who get paid for writing what they do. I get comments on my blog that are obviously that. But if I thought for a minute that I was reading advertising in the editorial columns here, it would be my last read.