9 comments

• 

  Adam Green

  3 years ago

  I've written a long follow up piece to my original post.
  http://darwinianweb.com/archive/2006/242.html
  
  My conclusion at this point is that the bloggers involved were naive and probably played expertly, but then they are full grown adults and should have been more careful. They sure will be next time. We all will be.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  Thanks, Adam. I think you are probably right -- at least I hope you are. I hope this kind of thing will get everyone thinking a little more about the kinds of things that the regular media world has been dealing with forever. It would be nice to think that the blogosphere could retain its youthful innocence, but I'm not sure that's possible given the amount of money that's flowing around.
  
  Mathew
  reply
• 

  Rob Hyndman

  3 years ago

  I've been thinking about this too, Mathew. One of the untrodden angles is that dangers do indeed lie in wait for "A list" bloggers who they visibly cast their lot in with the entrepreneur. An the Speakeasy matter shows the potential of blowback hitting them later. Live by the sword, die by the sword; reputation flows in both directions.
  
  So, two issues. First, do you disclose your interest? Failure to do so will inevitably tarnish reputation. Second, are you prepared to accept the risk of such a visible close association? If one is going to visibly promote, one is inevitably going to be associated with whatever happens with the promotee - good or bad.
  
  Finally, even when the interest is disclosed, I think there is reputational risk for the A listers who use their blogs 'too often' - whatever that means - as a vehicle for talking about projects they're involved in ....
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  I think you're right, Rob -- and the only option as far as I can see, if you value your reputation, is to disclose everything as publicly and as often as possible. And not just stuff like "I'm on the advisory board," but also "I like this guy and he slept on my couch a bunch of times, and I helped him raise money and I'm dating his sister" kind of thing. Then the only question you have to answer is whether you're getting too "inside" and whether that affects your credibility -- and whether you care.
  reply
• 

  Seth Finkelstein

  3 years ago

  Mathew, thanks for the link.
  
  Note it's not about being "a fairly decent guy" or not.
  
  Rather, money has influence. Every time this comes up, those influenced say "I'M A GOOD PERSON!" (== I'm not for sale). But the outright sale is kind of a trivial case. There's a whole range of complicated effects that shouldn't be reduced to that triviality.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  I agree, Seth. The "I'm being paid" is at one end of the spectrum, and in many ways is the easiest situation to deal with. In between is a rather large grey area.
  reply
• 

  Stuart MacDonald

  3 years ago

  Ya know, I can't help but go back to some of the "future of media" stuff we talked about a while back. To recap, one core value of traditional media is Editorial Oversight. Now, say what you will about how that skews voices, or how reporters have an obligation to Fight The Man, or how it slows everything down etc. but fact is, you at least get a second set of eyes and the opportunity for sobre second thought before hitting "post".
  
  Sobre second thought isn't just fact checking -- it's also a reality check on the ethics involved, isn't it? Doesn't the lack of same reduce the ability of the medium to go mainstream?
  
  -- Stuart
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  That's a fair point, Stuart. Some form of oversight is definitely worthwhile -- and more blogs could probably benefit from a little of that. At the same time, however, newspapers and other traditional media often get carried away with this principle and become almost paralyzed by the perceived pressure to always be "objective." And I think somewhere in the middle there is a happy medium.
  reply
• 

  Stuart MacDonald

  3 years ago

  It's more a comment that the lack of oversight inherently means that the possibility of doing something which calls ones judgement into question is higher.There's no "second password" to enter. I think that risk is part and parcel of a blog. Heck, smaller scale, but I've sure sent out a few 3am emails that I wish had never left my Drafts, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Same principle.
  
  -- Stuart
  reply