Comments on: A Dangerous Federal Intervention in Social Media http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/ Creating a User's Guide to Democratized Media Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:57:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Netvalar http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-1068 Netvalar Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:24:22 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-1068 I am all for the reason and purpose of these guidelines. Especially as the primary focus is on advertisers not bloggers. However how many complaints does it take to start an investigation? How much of your time as a blogger will be wasted by this investigation? Oh and lets not forget this is the internet so how many enemies does it take to make hundreds of complaints? I will answer that last very easily it only takes pissing off 1 person. This is the age of word of mouth. How many music fans are part of a street team? How often do they receive free swag? And now you tell me that all street team members have to disclose this in their limited character tweets? But hey I have the answer. Everyone who receives free swag once they no longer need it for reviews or whatever. Then they need to send it to the FTC via COD. If the govt. says we can't keep it well then instead of me paying to send it back let them. I am all for the reason and purpose of these guidelines. Especially as the primary focus is on advertisers not bloggers. However how many complaints does it take to start an investigation? How much of your time as a blogger will be wasted by this investigation? Oh and lets not forget this is the internet so how many enemies does it take to make hundreds of complaints? I will answer that last very easily it only takes pissing off 1 person.

This is the age of word of mouth. How many music fans are part of a street team? How often do they receive free swag? And now you tell me that all street team members have to disclose this in their limited character tweets?

But hey I have the answer. Everyone who receives free swag once they no longer need it for reviews or whatever. Then they need to send it to the FTC via COD. If the govt. says we can’t keep it well then instead of me paying to send it back let them.

]]> By: Roo http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-689 Roo Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:47:50 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-689 among the dozen questions this raises for me... do these "guidelines" apply only to<em> endorsement</em>? Am i then free to take money (or a computer) from Apple to bash Windows 7 in my blog (or some equvialent scenerio) without fearing the fcc? My television is now so intertwined with my home network and the internet as to be virtually one "media outlet". how do we distinguish "traditional media" when any ten minute viewing of CNN includes their twitters, facebooks, and blogs on whatever topic is being discussed?  will CNN now need to check on who posted each "opinion" they show and add a disclaimer between every comment? or are traditional media now only those on paper? what is the rational for exempting traditional media (whatever the definition) in the face of the clear abuses of "independent editorial oversight"? (The tea parties being the most glareing example, though the least agregious as it was so transparent) among the dozen questions this raises for me…

do these “guidelines” apply only to endorsement? Am i then free to take money (or a computer) from Apple to bash Windows 7 in my blog (or some equvialent scenerio) without fearing the fcc?

My television is now so intertwined with my home network and the internet as to be virtually one “media outlet”. how do we distinguish “traditional media” when any ten minute viewing of CNN includes their twitters, facebooks, and blogs on whatever topic is being discussed?  will CNN now need to check on who posted each “opinion” they show and add a disclaimer between every comment? or are traditional media now only those on paper?

what is the rational for exempting traditional media (whatever the definition) in the face of the clear abuses of “independent editorial oversight”? (The tea parties being the most glareing example, though the least agregious as it was so transparent)

]]> By: SpaceyG http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-684 SpaceyG Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:41:56 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-684 I once, a few months ago, suggested a political blogger with a specialty in SC politics for a CNN show.  CNN put the blogger on-air during the height of the Mark Sanford Appalachian Trail To Argentina, er, episode. The SC blogger was great on-camera, as many political bloggers often are as they're so devoted to whatever their particular political beat is that it is perfectly natural for them to converse knowledgeably on-air about it their topics as they write and talk constantly about their beat. Great fit, right? CNN liked the blogger as an on-air guest. Wanted him back for more he was so good at the SC political conversation.  This particular SC blogger was an expert in the wickedly squirmy underbelly of SC politics, and a good TV talker. What's not to like there?! Unbeknown to me, or to CNN at the time he went on-air though, was that this particular  SC politics blogger was on the payroll for a previous political opponent of Gov. Mark Sanford, an opponent from the SC gubernatorial campaign that Sanford won. The SC blogger chose not to disclose this to me (I was acting in the role of booker; not for pay though) or to CNN. Whoever the blogger  was getting a check from was NOT on his website (Palmetto Scoop) at the time either.  (And I don't know what's on the blog now in terms of disclosure.) Anyway... getting to the point here, and I do have one... why would CNN choose to NOT invite back this particular blogger over non-disclosure issues when they have a parade, and a Rolodex FULL,  of people on-air every day who are on far larger payrolls? Last I checked, CNN doesn't disclose any paying affiliations of every guest they put on-air as "experts."  Such as those now infamous  "experts" in warfare who are also on the payroll for defense contractors as consultants. Yep, that SC politics blogger got a raw deal. Maybe even one that would now be considered prosecutable, the non-disclosed blogging part at least. Who's to say what the broadcast ramifications would be? (I, thankfully, am not a lawyer. But I'm starting to feel that as a blogger I may need to be.) And we, as an audience, lost out on hearing more from a very entertaining and engaging on-air political personality in the making. FULL DISCLOSURE:  my personal political tendencies couldn't have been farther from that particular SC blogger's political bent. I just knew he ran a darn good SC politics blog which was engaging and entertaining and well-written. And I happened to know CNN was sniffing around for a SC politics expert... something I likely found out about on Twitter. Where else?! I once, a few months ago, suggested a political blogger with a specialty in SC politics for a CNN show.  CNN put the blogger on-air during the height of the Mark Sanford Appalachian Trail To Argentina, er, episode.
The SC blogger was great on-camera, as many political bloggers often are as they’re so devoted to whatever their particular political beat is that it is perfectly natural for them to converse knowledgeably on-air about it their topics as they write and talk constantly about their beat. Great fit, right?
CNN liked the blogger as an on-air guest. Wanted him back for more he was so good at the SC political conversation.  This particular SC blogger was an expert in the wickedly squirmy underbelly of SC politics, and a good TV talker. What’s not to like there?!
Unbeknown to me, or to CNN at the time he went on-air though, was that this particular  SC politics blogger was on the payroll for a previous political opponent of Gov. Mark Sanford, an opponent from the SC gubernatorial campaign that Sanford won.
The SC blogger chose not to disclose this to me (I was acting in the role of booker; not for pay though) or to CNN. Whoever the blogger  was getting a check from was NOT on his website (Palmetto Scoop) at the time either.  (And I don’t know what’s on the blog now in terms of disclosure.)
Anyway… getting to the point here, and I do have one… why would CNN choose to NOT invite back this particular blogger over non-disclosure issues when they have a parade, and a Rolodex FULL,  of people on-air every day who are on far larger payrolls?
Last I checked, CNN doesn’t disclose any paying affiliations of every guest they put on-air as “experts.”  Such as those now infamous  “experts” in warfare who are also on the payroll for defense contractors as consultants.
Yep, that SC politics blogger got a raw deal. Maybe even one that would now be considered prosecutable, the non-disclosed blogging part at least. Who’s to say what the broadcast ramifications would be? (I, thankfully, am not a lawyer. But I’m starting to feel that as a blogger I may need to be.)
And we, as an audience, lost out on hearing more from a very entertaining and engaging on-air political personality in the making.
FULL DISCLOSURE:  my personal political tendencies couldn’t have been farther from that particular SC blogger’s political bent. I just knew he ran a darn good SC politics blog which was engaging and entertaining and well-written. And I happened to know CNN was sniffing around for a SC politics expert… something I likely found out about on Twitter. Where else?!

]]> By: BMoreKarl http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-683 BMoreKarl Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:08:12 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-683 Thank you Dan Gillmor, You can't have the government deciding who is and who isn't covered by the first amendment freedom of the press. My crotchety old editor used to point out that that freedom applied to anybody who owned a press.  But today, the Web is my press.  The Internet is my sandbox and my audience and I'll be damned if I'm going to comply with this regulation because the FTC said so. Let the blogger beware - you're credibility is your own to spend or squander as you please. Let the reader beware - don't buy a product based on some random Web page you ran across. In the long run, the 24/7 crush of information about everything but everything will sort out the wheat from the chaff.   Thank you Dan Gillmor,
You can’t have the government deciding who is and who isn’t covered by the first amendment freedom of the press.
My crotchety old editor used to point out that that freedom applied to anybody who owned a press.  But today, the Web is my press.  The Internet is my sandbox and my audience and I’ll be damned if I’m going to comply with this regulation because the FTC said so.
Let the blogger beware – you’re credibility is your own to spend or squander as you please.
Let the reader beware – don’t buy a product based on some random Web page you ran across.
In the long run, the 24/7 crush of information about everything but everything will sort out the wheat from the chaff.
 

]]> By: Shocked_n_Awed http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-682 Shocked_n_Awed Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:10:39 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-682 “The Internet is a many-to-many system. …” Well, perhaps - but that's akin to saying television, in general, is a many-to-many system. Any one single blog or website is certainly a one-to-many broadcast. And I'm not sure that has any baring on the point. Any professional journalist not disclosing the reciept of a product or service either before or after writing anything relating to the manufacturer or producer of said product or service is biased, and will have a very hard time getting past that bias. I haven't seen anyone disagree with the premise behind these new rules - I guess, like most other laws, it will have to be hoped enforcement will be fair and balanced. “The Internet is a many-to-many system. …”
Well, perhaps – but that’s akin to saying television, in general, is a many-to-many system. Any one single blog or website is certainly a one-to-many broadcast.
And I’m not sure that has any baring on the point.
Any professional journalist not disclosing the reciept of a product or service either before or after writing anything relating to the manufacturer or producer of said product or service is biased, and will have a very hard time getting past that bias.
I haven’t seen anyone disagree with the premise behind these new rules – I guess, like most other laws, it will have to be hoped enforcement will be fair and balanced.

]]> By: boomhauer http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-681 boomhauer Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:49:53 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-681 yet again, freedoms lost via unenforceable regulations that will only be pulled out and used against you when the gov wants to shut you up.  If everyone is guilty, the powers can target anyone they decide to. yet again, freedoms lost via unenforceable regulations that will only be pulled out and used against you when the gov wants to shut you up.  If everyone is guilty, the powers can target anyone they decide to.

]]> By: Bill Free http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-677 Bill Free Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:56:44 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-677 I have to agree with Glenn. Most "commenters" I follow, whether in new or traditional media, value highly their reputation for objectivity and are extremely sensitive to actions that might compromise it. In my mind, this is an attempt to codify standards of practice that most already recognize. I understand concern over inevitable misapplication by an overzealous regulator or cheap shots by greedy consumers, but I don't think this should or will change behavior in the social media space. I have to agree with Glenn. Most “commenters” I follow, whether in new or traditional media, value highly their reputation for objectivity and are extremely sensitive to actions that might compromise it. In my mind, this is an attempt to codify standards of practice that most already recognize. I understand concern over inevitable misapplication by an overzealous regulator or cheap shots by greedy consumers, but I don’t think this should or will change behavior in the social media space.

]]> By: zato http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-675 zato Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:07:38 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-675 These laws and guidelines have the same major weakness the legal system does. The jails are filled with the naive and foolish, while master crooks steal billions. What about the major corporations who secretly own or control the websites and even newspapers, television and conferences that review and report on their industry. This kind of very large scale corporate propaganda is one of the biggest industries in America.   These laws and guidelines have the same major weakness the legal system does. The jails are filled with the naive and foolish, while master crooks steal billions. What about the major corporations who secretly own or control the websites and even newspapers, television and conferences that review and report on their industry. This kind of very large scale corporate propaganda is one of the biggest industries in America.
 

]]> By: anigalla.net http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-674 anigalla.net Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:05:18 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-674 Generally all the Government Orders or documents make us bored, this is not an exceptional document either. But do you feel that this document is prepared by someone who is avert to the bloggers and social media? I do.. Generally all the Government Orders or documents make us bored, this is not an exceptional document either. But do you feel that this document is prepared by someone who is avert to the bloggers and social media? I do..

]]> By: Gwen Ashley Walters http://mediactive.com/2009/10/05/a-dangerous-federal-intervention-in-social-media/#comment-672 Gwen Ashley Walters Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:20:37 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=655#comment-672 I scanned through the 81-page document of guidelines (I say scanned because I got bored reading the all the laborious examples). You make a good point about the Twitter limitation of 140 characters (no room to disclose and rave about xyz product/service) but I don't see a problem with the guidelines when it comes to longer publications (whether a blog post, a magazine article or a newspaper article (on or offline). People should disclose a "material connection." Isn't it sad that people don't do the right thing to begin? I scanned through the 81-page document of guidelines (I say scanned because I got bored reading the all the laborious examples).
You make a good point about the Twitter limitation of 140 characters (no room to disclose and rave about xyz product/service) but I don’t see a problem with the guidelines when it comes to longer publications (whether a blog post, a magazine article or a newspaper article (on or offline).
People should disclose a “material connection.” Isn’t it sad that people don’t do the right thing to begin?

]]>