When we recently told readers we acknowledged a “democratic renaissance,” we didn’t realize the extent of its legitimacy. You know something carries clout when our government begins to regulate it.
Regulation is oftentimes the hallmark of legitimacy. So, when the Federal Trade Commission moved to regulate bloggers, their clout was recognized. To us this recognition is past due because bloggers have long manipulated the hearts and sometimes wallets of Internet subscribers.
Last Monday, the FTC announced it would demand that bloggers announce up front and visibly any conflicts of interest when reviewing products ranging from cell phones to sneakers. That means if Fancy Feast decides to ship “katlovr69” a year’s supply of cat food, Mr. or Mrs. “Cat Lover” would have to disclose this type of information in any product review they post on their blog.
Traditionally — and when we say traditionally we’re referring to real journalists — this type of information is already disclosed and products sent for reviews usually have to be sent back to the company seeking the plug.
To us, this is no source of complaint. No one gets into journalism for the fast cars, free cat food and piles of cash. Regulation breeds legitimacy and disclosure breeds credibility. If bloggers want to be held to the high standards we toil to preserve, this regulation should be deemed acceptable and devoid of complaint.
We mentioned this before but we’ll mention it again; democracy ensures everyone has a voice. However, without regulation or any type of standards — moral, ethical or otherwise — blog voices cannot be labeled news.
Hence, when the FTC moves to regulate bloggers, essentially certifying the credibility of their product reviews, no one should complain.
This isn’t a question of free speech. The “democratic renaissance,” we acknowledge, is occurring before our eyes. Anyone and everyone can speak up about anything and everything. But when “everyone” is involved, some regulation is needed.
We told you we didn’t want the line between journalism and blogging to blur. This is for the benefit of both the journalist and the blogger because it is not just about what the FTC announced last Monday. The new rule is about the possible future of regulation. We said regulation of blogger product reviews increases their credibility, but will further regulation silence the independent voices of the blogosphere?
This is the line we must tiptoe as a republican nation. When regulating or legislating we must find a balance between the complete disorder of anarchy and the complete control of oligarchy.
While this may take credibility away from the blogger, his appeal to readers is still independence from any type of governing body when creating content. Taking this independence away renders our “democratic renaissance” defunct.
We acknowledge the difficulty of good governance, just like we acknowledge it’s lacking. So when the FTC makes a good move we’ll tip our hat. In the spirit of Stephen Colbert, though, we’re just waiting to wag our finger.
As soon as the FTC steps over its bounds, you can bet your sweet donkey we’ll be wagging that finger.
It may seem like we brush off our cousins in reporting, but that’s certainly not the case. All we want is a distinct line drawn between the blogging world and the world of legitimate journalism — for their benefit, our benefit and ultimately your benefit.
When a blogger declares Fancy Feast is a wonderful cat food — after being paid a warehouse of Fancy Feast to write the testimonial — the blogger abandons integrity, journalists are cast into a gray area of complicity, the reading public becomes confused and we all lose.
Even if Fancy Feast is the greatest cat food on the planet, woeful felines might never get to taste anything other than Meow Mush or Kitty Krap if the blogger isn’t credible and up front with readers about any relationship with the manufacturer.