Will blog for food
Jonathan Strong has an interesting piece on the sometimes-fuzzy line between blogging and paid political advocacy. I think there’s quite a difference between getting paid by an ideological organization to blog (this is hardly any different than being a writer at an ideologically slanted magazine or newspaper) and getting paid directly by political candidates or taking money from an organization to blog independently without disclosing that fact. For instance:
Besides campaigns, industry groups and other political groups oftentimes pay bloggers for their insights.
Dan Riehl, who writes the Riehl World View blog, is one of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele’s most vocal defenders in the conservative blogosphere. When The Daily Caller reported the RNC spent $1,946 at a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex acts, Riehl blasted the piece as a “pathetically weak story tailored to play to the Left and create problems for the GOP.”
“Riehl World View” readers might be interested to know that Riehl is not simply a blogger, but also a paid consultant to the RNC. In an interview, Riehl said he was paid an amount in the “hundreds of dollars” for writing a strategy document on how the RNC could better reach out to bloggers. Riehl said his motivation for defending Steele was to aid the Republican Party, and that he didn’t disclose his consulting work because, “I didn’t see it as having anything to do with my views.”
“I never made enough money to be bought,” he said.
Other bloggers openly lament how few campaign dollars are flowing their way. Conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain complains that politicians aren’t purchasing more advertising on blogs. “Advertising buys good will,” he says.
If it appears that conservative bloggers are more likely to take campaign money than their liberal counterparts, there may be a reason. According to Dan Riehl, conservatives can’t rely on the infrastructure of foundations and think tanks that supports so many liberal bloggers.
Riehl has made it a goal to mobilize conservative benefactors and organizers to establish a funding infrastructure mimicking what the liberal “netroots” created during the Bush years. “They did it the smart way,” Riehl says.
While blogging is not at all the same thing as reporting, and readers of blogs expect opinions and partisanship rather than balance, there are lines bloggers shouldn’t cross and certainly full disclosure of any paid support from a candidate seems like an ethical first step. Paid advocacy for specific causes or politicians is simply not the same ball game as working for an ideological publication. If you write for a tech magazine you’re obviously going to write about technology, but if you’re paid by Nokia to write favorable reviews about their products then you enter much murkier waters and owe it to your readers to disclose that information – which, as it happens, basically discredits those reviews.
If The Boston Tea Party offered me $100 bucks to blog for them, the bribe wouldn’t be the $100.
I mean, sure. $100 is a day (or maybe a week) changer but it’s not going to make a difference in my life one way or the other.
But, jeez, the *RUSH* of being asked to blog for Boston Tea? Dude! They think that I, Jaybird, am a good enough writer that they want me to blog? For them???
Dude, that intangible would get them favorable coverage that one hundred times the money amount wouldn’t get them from a “real” shill.Report
Holy Jesus we need to get in on this racket.
I’m also shocked, shocked to discover Riehl is a paid shill.Report
but the real story is whether liberal writers called drudge a dick in a private e-mail. move along, nothing to see here.Report
@gregiank, for the record, this very story was run by the exact same website that ran the story about liberal writers.
Mind-blowing, isn’t it?Report
@Jaybird, i’m guessing this will generate quite a bit less heat then the previous “issue.” I did notice the Caller ran this. Tucker truly is the bow tie of truth.Report
@gregiank, I think that JournOlist generated so much heat because it was, in fact, evidence that there was a bit of collusion and message co-ordination on the part of lefty journalists.
The bombshell, for me, was Katha Politt talking about dismissing all of Clinton’s bimbos as part of the right-wing conspiracy. Dude, that was *HUGE*.
This?
Let’s say that you find out that Joe Citizen With A Blog got a hundred bucks from (candidate) to talk (candidate) up in a post periodically.
This strikes me as significantly different from folks who, like, get paid to provide unbiased (or, in the case of The Nation and similar, biased) coverage actually coordinating.
I think that much of this is because society has flipped a switch in its head and we now make distinctions between “the press” and “the citizenry” (seriously, I argued with a friend who works at a newspaper about how there needs to be special legislation protecting the freedom of the press for newspapers… this blew my mind).
That said, I think that the only thing that needs to be out there is full disclosure. I can reach my own conclusion about (candidate) while reading your post when I see the “I got $10 for writing this” at the bottom.Report
How do I get in on this racket? I don’t make anything off my blog! But I guess I don’t do it for the money, I do it for the love of blogging, and to get my message out, and to cover events the other media doesn’t, and that will warm my heart at night better than a sports car any day, right?Report
I think I’m too easy on bloggers. I forgive them for things I’d never forgive a “professional” news source for. For instance, last week I read a blogger who repeatedly made a fairly incendiary claim about a public figure based on a news article said blogger had linked to. Problem was the article said no such thing. Literally, all they had to do was read the article they were linking to! But, of course, I thought, “well, it’s not like they’re professionals or anything”. I think we might be setting the bar too low for bloggers.Report