Much has been written about the FTC’s upcoming oversight of blogs. As I said a while back
… the FTC does not appear to be trying to regulate political blogging. Bloggers are free to mislead and mis-inform the public without fear of Big Brother watching.
I have become convinced that it is time for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to do something. Case in point: Politico, in general, and Jonathan Martin in particular.
Online newspapers around the country have syndicated the content of Politico, including our local online news, PilotOnline. I doubt if most readers even notice that the byline in the story is from Politico, as opposed to that of one of the newspaper’s writers. Newspapers claim a journalistic standard that includes, among other things, disclosures of conflicts of interest. Yet in their online presence, they allow content that lacks such a standard.
Groups such as the Media Bloggers Association encourage, but do not require, such disclosure. While I am a member of the MBA, I see nothing that indicates that Politico is.
Which brings me to Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin. Gotta love his profile on the site. So even if you read his article yesterday and tried to do your due diligence by clicking on his name in it, you’d find nothing that you didn’t know before. (Contrast Martin’s profile to that of another senior political writer, Ben Smith.)
Fortunately, Fake Virginia has filled in the blanks.
Martin served on the campaign staff of Mark Earley, the Republican nominee for Governor of Virginia in 2001. After Mark Warner was elected Governor over Earley with 52 percent of the vote, Martin relocated to Connecticut to work on the successful 2002 Congressional campaign of Connecticut Republican Rob Simmons. After Simmons assumed office, Martin joined his Congressional staff as a legislative assistant in 2003. In the fall of 2004, Martin took a leave of absence from Simmons’s Congressional staff to work on the Congressman’s re-election campaign in 2004. After Simmons was reelected, Martin returned to Simmons’s Congressional payroll and remained there until August 2005.
Head on over there and read the rest.
Self-policing is great – when it works. Obviously, it’s not working here. Time for the FEC to put something in place that makes it happen. And until then, let me suggest to the content managers of online newspapers that they make such disclosures a requirement of carrying the content. That will go a long way towards filling the gap until the FEC decides to act.
UPDATE: While I was writing this, PilotOnline posted the Martin story. And without even a byline for him.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I’m not sure that disclosure really makes much of a difference, anymore. And as a practical matter, I can’t imagine how the FEC would/could enforce it (much as I don’t think we’ll be seeing any fines arising from these FTC rules (for years, if ever)).
Sometimes, the threat of enforcement is enough.
Sometimes. But I’m not really a fan of opening up (yet another) area of discretionary prosecution.
Whiiine. When the Democraps do it, little Miss Muffett has no problems with it. It’s those wascally wepublicans she can’t stand.
Obviously, you haven’t read the comment policy. Consider yourself warned. There won’t be another.
And had you bothered to read through the links, you would note that I’ve written about this before. Has nothing to do with Ds or Rs; rather, it is an issue of ethics.
It seems to me that you have more of a problem with the Pilot Online than with the Politico.
I agree with Miss Muffett to the extent that disclosure should be a standard practice.
Too much rumor mongering and slander is pumped out through the blogs, and damned too little honest discussion of alternative ideas, or the offering of compromise solutions, are displayed.
When someone is blogging and is on the payroll of a political party or one of the “think tanks” or one of the supposedly non-partisan non-profit groups, then that should be voluntarily disclosed. I would even support an industry standard that calls for voluntary disclosure of affiliation.
I’m not in favor of handing over any more power to the federal agencies. They do too much to harm our liberty already.
On the subject of banning voices from blogs, while that is obviously the right of the blog owner, such practices destroy the credibility and the underlying value of a blog.
It has been sad to see an increasing number of blogs become increasingly one sided while opinions that differ from the particular party line are edited out or banned. Blogs such as, Bearing Drift, SWAC girl and Deo Vindice, and many other, have become useless, since we can now only find partisan propaganda on their pages. The deeply ironic part about these blogs who are so quick to censor others, is that they generally espouse a commitment to “free speech.” Of course, as soon as that speech is contrary to the views of the sponsor or the host, then the response is increasingly to just ban those thoughts.
Apparently, it is easier to ban views that differ than to actually meet any ideas with facts of one’s own or to openly discuss a compromise solution.
Just for the record, the Republican Party proved during the Bush regime that they are corrupt and that they did not care what the Constitution says. The Republicans turned the power of our federal agencies against our own citizens, and for that alone, the Republicans must NEVER be trusted to lead this nation again.
My comment policy isn’t all about banning – it’s about staying on topic and not making personal attacks. You will note that I made a similar comment on this post when the commentor strayed off-topic.
I’m sure it will surprise few here that I’m siding with VJP on an issue, but I’m glad she instituted her new policy. For whatever reason, this place attracts a ridiculous number of trolls, and it has unfortunately driven down the quality of conversation. I’m not (as I’ve demonstrated, I think Tyler will agree) a fan of moderating conversations. But there’s a certain point at which the noise needs to be addressed so the rest of us can carry on an intelligent conversation. And there are, I am certain, a number of extraordinarily intelligent and interesting readers of this blog. We’d hear more from them, I bet, if there weren’t so much predictable assclowning going on.
Sure, as usual are selective in their indignation. All I did is point out that Her Highness is a hypocrite, that she only opposes this when Republicans do it. For that, I’m “Warned” and there won’t be another. But let MB, her liberal echo call people trolls guillty of assclowning, and suddenly those real personal attacks are ignored.
As to the “substance” of the original post, I don’t see Ms. Muffett complaining about George Stephenopolus (Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy to Pres Clinton), or Tim Russert (Chief of Staff of Patrick Moynihan), Bill Moyers (Special Assistant to President Johnson), Chris Matthews (worked for 4 different Democrat Congressmen, Speechwriter for Pres Carter, and even ran for Congress as a Democrat), and on and on and on.
Claiming this is about “ethics” is hooey. Why don’t you post on top of your blog that you are a Democrat who (unsuccessfully) ran for office? You unethical?
“Why don’t you post on top of your blog that you are a Democrat who (unsuccessfully) ran for office?”
For quite a long time, she did. I did not notice that it was no longer there. That has been quite some time ago, and I no longer see it as relevant.
What a writer has done or is doing is rarely relevant to the substance of the argument they are making. It can add to the veracity of opinions, but not of facts. Let me give an example. A former co-worker of mine embedded with the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. When he gives his opinions on the Afghan people, his opinion carries great weight with me, because it is opinion. If he were to say that average August temperature in Kabul is 32 degrees Celsius, his statement would be have no more weight because he made it.
A logical argument does not depend on the person making the argument. An opinion does. Since opinions show the bias of the speaker, there is no need to advertise that bias.