Scott Kirsner, former Boston Globe writer, has a thoughtful piece on disclosure in the blogosphere. He points out the ethical dilemmas posed by business’ efforts to court bloggers with free stuff and even cash payments for positive coverage. There is no code of ethics in the blogosphere, of course, outside of perhaps the Cluetrain Manifesto, so it’s up to the readers to decide whom to believe.
Personally, I believe this issue will work itself out at the grass roots level. Look at Engadget and BoingBoing, which are two of the most popular and successful blogs. They need to uphold high standards or their audiences would quickly desert them. The same holds true at less-popular titles. The blogosphere is self-policing, and any popular blogger who tries to deceive his or her audience will be quickly smoked out. Once you get a reputation for shady ethics, it’s very difficult to recover. Any blogger who wants to build a long-term franchise will be very careful not to cross that line.
There will always be con men in social media, but their influence will be limited. The readers will see to that.
Being ethically pure is a fascinating dilemma. Everything one does has an ethical consequence, and the line between right and wrong is always drawn by a subjective and fallible human. The best we can do is state our affiliations under full disclosure. I don’t believe it’s wrong to accept a free laptop or software from someone hawking those wares, and it’s arrogant for anyone to condemn the bloggers who accept those unsolicited gifts. What IS wrong is to make statements that can be influenced or tainted by a relationship, gift or payment without full disclosure.
I think that as long as everyone involved in the process is being open and transparent, it’s OK to receive and review products. In working with tech publications in the past, I would often send products in for testing and review never assumed that it would be returned (unless I specifically requested that it be). Traditional media doesn’t go out and buy all of the products they test (especially since most want to get their hands on things before they are generally available).
In some ways, I think that the traditional media is in a more questionable position. Often times they carry advertising from the companies they cover and whose products they review. I know that everyone talks about the strict separation between advertising and editorial and all of the reporters that I have worked with over the years take that very seriously; but why should bloggers be trusted any less?
Part of the answer may be the lack of any policies or editorial structure, but as you point out, transgressors will be punished swiftly. For now though, bloggers should be able to receive and review products in the same way that other media outlets do.
I agree with Greg. The litmus test is disclosure. If a reporter/blogger discloses the background of his/her review, then readers are free to make up their own minds. Mainstream media has all kinds of different policies regarding review products. Why should their standards be any higher than those of bloggers? As long as reviewers reveal the circumstances under which they review the products, it’s up to the reader to judge whom they trust.