Ideas for sale are still ideas!

Taking cash in exchange for promoting an idea sounds, well, sleazy. All the more so when the idea is a government program and is paid for with taxpayer's money.

Karol at Alarming News discusses the issue as it relates to her work and her blog:

As many of my readers know, I work at a political consulting firm. We mostly do event planning for various politicians and political groups, but we also do PR, strategic consulting and a variety of other politically motivated tasks. I realize my reach on this blog isn't anywhere near as impressive as Williams, but at what point do I step over the line when I promote clients on this blog (something I haven't done yet beyond noting events that may be of interest, something I do whether or not I'm getting paid for it). The problem is that my clients are groups and people that I like anyway, and would promote anyway, that's why I chose to work at my current firm. So, where's the line? For example, I'm interested in the governor's race in New Jersey and my firm is in discussions about doing some work for one of the candidates. If we get the account, I'll have insider information that may be interesting to my blog readers. But, will I be doing something unethical by pushing the candidate (who I would prefer over the rest of the field anyway) on my blog? It's different from blogging while I'm on a campaign because you all know who my client is then, while my firm has many clients, with some I have no involvement whatsoever. What if I mention one of those without disclosing that they're a client? Is that unethical? There are groups that I openly love, like the NRA or the Club For Growth. What if I land one of them as an account someday? Will I then no longer be allowed to write about them? Will I have to disclose my relationship to them every time I do?

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Hey, and precisely what is a "relationship" and who the hell's business is that? Do I have to disclose that I'm a Life Member of the NRA? Do I have to provide a list of people I know? Do I have to disclose freelance political lobbying I've done in the past without pay? Political offices I've held? I really don't see why, because this is just an exercise in free speech. These are ideas and opinions, which anyone is free to take or leave. Like everyone else's, my opinions are shaped by experiences I've had, people I've known, and it isn't a conflict of interest at all; just part of who I am. What should matter is the idea, not the ultimate source of funds. Seriously; some bloggers work for the government; others work for banks. I'm the judge of what they have to say, but only if I take the time to read their blogs, and I couldn't care less about the origin of their money.

Everyone gets money from somewhere, doh!

It's real easy, however, for me to sit here and make these statements about ethics, because I am largely immune from that type of criticism. As Bill O'Reilly says, I "work for no one and can't be fired," and not only don't I take money for anything from anyone, I never affiliated my blog with any of the alliances like Blogs for Bush (or Dean, or Kerry), and I don't even have a tip jar. If anyone wanted to send me money (let's say he'd tracked down my Paypal account name), my antennae would be up, because I'd wonder what he wanted.

Yet I'm one of the most corrupt people around. I take a broad general view of the world, and I have very low, very forgiving standards. Which is fine until something offends my low standards; then I explode with pent-up rage which I further repress by channeling it into writing. In practice, it would be rather tough for someone to pay me to write about something (even if I agreed with whatever it was), because I'd have trouble getting my juices flowing. As it is, there are lots of times news items come along that everyone posts about and I'm just pained. Why should I have to write about something just because everyone else is? It's the appearance factor; if you blog daily, and there's an important topic, there's an unwritten rule that if you don't write about it you'll be seen as not caring!

Now the idea that I don't care (about the war in Iraq) or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people simply because I don't write about it -- why, that's an offensive idea in itself. Certainly it's profoundly illogical. There has to be a spark of newness to get me going; if I'm saying what you can read elsewhere I'm not interested in writing it.

Which is a long way of saying I'd be a poor choice as a paid writer for this cause or that cause.

Beyond that, I'd never write an opinion other than my own.

Glenn Reynolds cares a lot more about ethics than most bloggers, and has higher standards than mine, and I think the only reason he's accused of taking money to "promote" another blogger is jealousy. The allegation against him is pure, unmitigated hogwash. As Alarming News notes:

someone has accused him of taking money to promote Wonkette. He denies it and I completely believe him. But, what if Nick Denton hit his tip jar that week? Glenn might truly like Wonkette's writing but it would look all wrong, wouldn't it, even if one action had nothing to do with the other?
It wouldn't look wrong to me.

So scold me for being corrupt!

I'll say this right now: if someone links to me I try to link back. If I go to their blog and like something they say, I'll (gasp!) promote it! If someone put an ad here I'd probably plug their merchandise, or their blog if that was advertised. Hell, I'd promote the blog even if I disagreed with it. What the hell is wrong with being nice to people who've been nice to you? If that's corrupt, then it's my kind of corruption. Link to me, and I'll link back as soon as I find out about it. I'll try to get people to send money to the causes I like too! If an organization I liked ran an ad, I'd promote it shamelessly. I've hit a lot of tip jars too; and not once did I expect a link.

None of this will change my ideas. I will continue to promote my own ideas as well as those I agree with.

If you don't like it, don't pay me!

If you like it, promote it! (This blog, I must disclose, engages in self-promotion with every post it publishes!)

But either way, an idea remains an idea. It either has intrinsic value or it does not. Ideas cannot become corrupted by money, no matter how much, or how little. A worthless idea cannot be rendered valuable no matter how much is spent to promote it, and likewise a valuable idea is not rendered worthless by a lack of funding.

Hmmmm......

Maybe I'm missing something.

Perhaps someone should pay me to think this through again!

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: After a large infusion of capitalist-grown coffee (which was paid for by me), I have just thought it through again, and it occurs to me that some of the confusion is being generated by the ill-defined nature of the blogosphere. What I see as an idea, others see as a commodity. (The legal system increasingly treats ideas as commodities -- with McCain Feingold as a horrific example.) Political ideologues tend to see battles over ideas as being won by whoever spends the most money, and thus ideas are not seen as right or wrong, but as paid manipulations, the success or lack of success of which depend on the depth of the pocket. For example, movements to support or oppose, say, "Gay Marriage" will be called political trickery by both "sides" -- and the voters' "thoughts" will be said to have been bought by powerful forces who are able to manipulate not based on ideas, but on how much money they spent promoting them. This type of thinking is based on the assumption that ordinary people (the "little people") are stupid, and are incapable of independent thought.

Much as I abhor thinking the thoughts of other people (one of my favorite gripes), I like to think of the blogosphere as being above groupthink, identity politics, and the herd mentality. Ideas here should stand or fall on their own.

Those who are easily manipulated or misled, in my view, don't belong in the blogosphere, which is not here to protect and enshrine idiocy (or some lowest common denominator of mediocrity in thought). I suspect that many of those who complain about being "misled" were not in fact misled themselves, but seek to "protect" the "public" from "unregulated" thought -- the premise being that only an elite, select group should be allowed to do "professional" misleading.

I'll run the risk of being misled on my own terms, OK? I don't need "help."

UPDATE: In another act of shameless self promotion, I have just added another 30 links to the blogroll. (Link payola, no doubt.)

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that Jeff Jarvis (who's quite an authority on the subject) has a must-read post on the ethics of blog advertising:

The idea that you can "buy buzz" is wrong. Buzz is what people talk about; you can capture it, like a firefly in the night; you can respond to it in a conversation. But when you buy it, that's not buzz. That's advertising. And if you do that surreptitiously, that's a lie.

Trust is the organizing principle of citizens' media. Well, of course, trust is also the organizing principle of the world and all markets. Only here, you can measure trust and when it is lost.

The bottom line: Don't pull an Armstrong. Once you sell your credibility, you can't buy it back. There's a no-refund policy on trust.

Read it all. (The only thing I'd add is that if someone tells me a consumer product is good, I'll still have to evaluate it for myself. The assertion of an ordinary consumer might turn out to be less valuable than information in an advertisement, and whether the "consumer" turned out to be a shill for the manufacturer, I'd still evaluate the assertion the same way.)

La Shawn Barber has a brillant must-read post, clearly written from the heart:

...during the election, Rush Limbaugh disclosed that he was an unpaid consultant for the Bush campaign. It was out in the open. He had nothing to hide and he wasn’t outed by the media seeking a scandal.

Williams has done the opposite, and it looks bad. I don’t care about him; I care about honesty and integrity. It’s about character.

Contrary to what liberals think, black conservatives are not a monolith. Williams is responsible for his own actions, but the perception he leaves in his wake is detrimental to the cause so many black conservatives fight for. I take that personally.

Again, read it all.

I understand why La Shawn would take this personally, but I certainly would never remotely entertain the thought of judging La Shawn Barber because of the actions of Armstrong Williams. People who think and stereotype that way should be an exception -- not the rule -- in the blogosphere. Once again, I think there may be a growing disconnect between the blogosphere and the politically manipulated.

I worry that as the blogosphere gets bigger, there will be more pressure coming from professional leaders as well as professional followers.

IN THE INTERESTS OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I think I should make the following points clear:

  • 1. To all liberals who dislike my thoughts and want to resort to accusatory ad hominem attacks: I hereby disclose that I am a conservative with a hidden agenda.
  • 2. To all conservatives who dislike my thoughts and want to resort to accusatory ad hominem attacks: I hereby disclose that I am a liberal with a hidden agenda.
  • 3. Anyone who disagrees with any cause I support can feel free to consider me a "lobbyist" working on its behalf -- whether in secret or openly! I confess!
  • How much fuller can my disclosure get than that?

    AND MORE DISCLOSURE: For what it's worth, I have ridiculed advertisers on my blog before, and if I didn't like the contents or products of the ads, I'd do it again.

    Potential advertisers, be warned!

    UPDATE: Thank you Glenn Reynolds for kindly linking this post! Welcome InstaPundit readers. I'm quite flattered that this post was called "a rant that's amusing and informative."

    Hmmmm.... that would be a good caption for this blog, wouldn't it? (Or would it be more shameless promotion?)

    UPDATE: QandO has an interesting post on the illegality of "Payola" here. According to the FCC, it's a licensing violation, based on the public's right to know who's persuading them:

    Sponsorship identification requirements were first imposed upon
    broadcasters by the Radio Act of 1927 and the basic purpose of
    such requirements has not changed since that time: ``listeners
    [and viewers] are entitled to know by whom they are being
    persuaded.'' Applicability of Sponsorship Identification Rules,
    40 FCC 141 (1963), as modified, 40 Fed Reg. 41936 (September 9,
    1975).3 Thus, the audience must ``be clearly informed that it is
    hearing or viewing matter which has been paid for, when such is
    the case, . . . and the person paying for the broadcast of
    matter [must] be clearly identified.'' Midwest Radio-Television,
    Inc., 49 FCC 2d 512, 515 (1974), citing National Broadcasting
    Company 27 FCC 2d 75 (1970). The language of the statute is very
    broad, requiring sponsorship identification if any type of
    valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid or
    promised, charged or accepted. The Commission has consistently
    upheld these strict identification requirements. Universal
    Broadcasting Co. of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Inc., 51 FCC 2d 597,
    602 (1975), forfeiture reduced, 58 FCC 2d 1367 (1976), citing
    Sponsorship Identification Rules, 34 FCC 829, 894 (1963) (The
    Commission's ``strict identification requirements'' should not be
    relaxed because ``[p]aramount to an informed opinion and wisdom
    of choice . . . is the public's need to know the identity of
    those persons or groups who elicit the public's support.'').
    Does that mean I was entitled to know who Atrios was?

    Just kidding, folks! (The FCC, of course, has no jurisdiction over blogs. Anonymity in free speech has a long and glorious history, going back to the Federalist Papers.)

    posted by Eric on 01.08.05 at 09:54 AM





    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1905



    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ideas for sale are still ideas!:

    » Saturday morning reading ... from Darleen's Place
    Some great things are afoot today! Let's start with LGF's first round voting for The Fiskie. It's a long list of idiotarians to choose from, but you get to vote for five. Right now the top three are His Corpulentness... [Read More]
    Tracked on January 8, 2005 10:52 AM
    » Armstrong Williams: The Wrong Side from La Shawn Barber's Corner
    Every day I'm on this blog writing about my faith and political ideology. Although I'm registered "Undeclared," I vote for Republicans. I admit my bias and purpose up front for all the world to see, if they don't already know it. I am a conser... [Read More]
    Tracked on January 8, 2005 06:19 PM
    » Ditch Armstrong Williams and Get to Know Us! from 3martini
    Hey Karl Rove, we'll do what Armstrong Williams did for a fraction of the price. [Read More]
    Tracked on January 9, 2005 02:44 PM
    » Add your voice to the sound of the crowd from The White Peril
    I almost never read something at Eric's and think, "Oh, no, no, no, no, man--what were you thinking?" Even in this case, it's just a short passage, but I think it's significant to what he's saying in this (otherwise excellent)... [Read More]
    Tracked on January 10, 2005 12:17 AM
    » White House Paid A Commentator To Argue Its Case from The Moderate Voice
    No matter how you slice it, dice it, and try to finesse it , in [Read More]
    Tracked on January 10, 2005 10:34 AM
    » Armstrong Williams Fallout from Parableman
    I said before that Armstrong Williams made a mistake. I was sort of issuing a challenge to anyone who might argue that he really did something worse than make a mistake. As I've looked at other sites, including liberals, moderates,... [Read More]
    Tracked on January 10, 2005 02:04 PM



    Comments

    Omigod, the email was correct

    Size matters

    Darleen   ·  January 8, 2005 12:00 PM

    I think you may be getting into an immoral issue there!

    :)

    Eric Scheie   ·  January 8, 2005 12:24 PM

    Yet another excellent post. Yes, we are being inundated by shallow "frog's perspective" (to use Spengler's description of Marxism) materialists who have no ideas of their own and can only reduce everything to money. They would sell their souls for money, so they assume everybody would.

    No tip jar here? I'd be tipping you a lot of money for your fine posts, and for the privilege of commenting here. I do tip other bloggers I like, e.g., Jeff Soyer and Dean Esmay, whenever I can afford to do so. Unfortunately, this month, due largely to the previous month's expenditures, I'm rather financially stretched thin. But I'm not going to set up a tip jar on my own blog, largely because I hardly ever post anything worth $00.02. I'm also not going to be taking in advertizing because the title of my blog won't allow it.

    I need to start blogging about spectrums real soon. I'm way behind on my blogging again. I've been reading too many blogs and not enough books for some time. Now, I'm behind on my blog-reading and commenting, as well as e-mails, because I'm absorbed in some books. I'm still reading that book on the history of Romanticism. I'm also reading a book by an Objectivist on the rise of "post-modernism". I just got my copy of "The Illustrated Fountainhead" today from the Ayn Rand Institute (yes, my favorite novel was once syndicated as a comic strip during the 1940s!). I also have a book by a Christian conservative contrasting contemporary world-views. I have also ordered another spectrum book. And I'm continuing to write the endless saga of holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma vs. wicked Wanda and her women vs. Rev. Victor and his men, with Mr. and Mrs. Bricker in the center of it all on many spectrums. And I need to do much more ............

    Steven I should tip for comments I like, and bill for comments I dislike!

    Why, I could even disclose that in a warning.

    I've also been thinking of allowing certain people to write my replies for me. Since they've already put words in my mouth, they might as well reply to themselves, on my behalf! While I'd always lose the arguments that way, it would be less work.

    :)

    Eric Scheie   ·  January 8, 2005 05:57 PM

    I've also been thinking of allowing certain people to write my replies for me. Since they've already put words in my mouth,

    Jaysus on a Pony, Eric, drink warning next time, eh?

    That was nice California Chardonnay coming out my nose ....

    ;-D

    Darleen   ·  January 8, 2005 09:11 PM

    The only thin Williams has lost is credibility, and only because he looked like he had something to hide.

    The question of where the money came from is somewhat more important. It's such a trivial amount it's entirely believeable that there were others paid who never hid it and we'll all find that out in short order. On the other hand what if there's a coterie of people receiving secret taxpayer funds like this?

    And therein lies the problem: the obsessives who hate the President (they're always out there, even if the party names switch) will do everything they can now to find scandal here, any whiff of anything biggger. Which will be exhausting to watch.

    Dean Esmay   ·  January 9, 2005 03:44 AM

    I totally admite Armstrong Williams for what he did, and I intend to get into the game. Ethics, schmethics.

    http://3martini.typepad.com/3martini/2005/01/ditch_armstrong.html

    seamus   ·  January 9, 2005 02:02 PM

    Don't bother with a tip jar, most readers never put anything in it anyway, unless you plead for it--which I have shamefully done when I wanted to upgrade my software.

    I'd happily take a large sum of money to blog about something I already support. I'd even consider supporting something I'm not passionate about for a large sum of money. Hey, just like you said, I do that Monday through Friday when I write stuff for my clients, and they PAY me for it. Novel concept, eh?

    Why are we ashamed of being Capitalists? And even more ridiculous, why are CONSERVATIVES getting their panties in a bunch about being a Capitalists? I don't remember going through the mirror.

    Mrs. du Toit   ·  January 10, 2005 03:00 AM


    March 2007
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30 31

    ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
    WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


    Search the Site


    E-mail




    Classics To Go

    Classical Values PDA Link



    Archives




    Recent Entries



    Links



    Site Credits