Centerfield

Both Instapundit and Buzzmachine are giving this a fair amount of cyber-ink, and address many of the relevant concerns and come with lots of good points. So check 'em out.

What I gather is this. There are details specific to Armstrong's story that make his case troubling that are absent from the other case. Armstrong was paid with tax dollars to be a willing shill.

But Markos's case nevertheless raises issues that many honest bloggers are right to be concerned about. Even if you are not a "willing shill," you can still be a dupe, and going on someone's payroll can still adversely affect your objectivity.

It's worth wondering about the motives of someone who wants to pay you for them, they may be trying to co-opt you.

Here are the links

Buzzmachine

Instapundit with open comments!!!

plus a free article in the

Wall Street Journal Online

I've heard that Williams actually did disclose his "paid ad" status a few times, just not nearly every time. I don't know if that's true, but even if so it wasn't sufficient. Paid ads by purportedly independent "journalists" should always be clearly identified as such.

I don't like defending Williams--I think he's a blathering partisan blowhard, about as bright as a box of rocks--but to be fair it's not relevant in the public castration of his reputation that the money was indirectly from the government. That bad is the government's. Williams' bad is not being clear and upfront in disclosing that he was being paid for his endorsements.

it's not relevant in the public castration of his reputation that the money was indirectly from the government. That bad is the government's.

Agree 100% on that point.

You mean many blog writers/creators are biased? Say it ain't so!! My faith in the "new media" is shaken.

(Corollary: As my kids used to say "I saw it on the Internet, it must true"

And PS:

Sadly no one is paying me for my opinions. Anyone know the going rate?

Political bias may be obvious, but biases for or against a person may not be.

In a case like Kos, he's going to be left wing whether he's paid or not. But whether he supports Dean or Kucinich, who essentially had the same positions, may have something to do with who pays him. If I was a liberal, I would take that into account when evaluating his comments.

Likewise, if I were in a position to select the next leader of the Democratic National Committee, I would want to know who is being paid by whom, and give their advice the weight it deserves. Now, Matt Stoller is actually running Simon For Chair for Simon Rosenberg, and I presume he's being paid as a consultant. Anything he'd say about the race for DNC chair has to be understood in that context, though making allowances for that, it may still be persuasive. Indeed, I think Simon Rosenberg would make a good chair for the Democrats.

Geesh... What an insult to Armstrong Williams. He may be a little whacko, but he is way more intelligent then that. At least some of the candidates Armstrong endorses win.

I saw Armstrong Williams (who, of course, is African-American) once say that it would have been better if the South had won the Civil War. The only good thing about the North winning was that it ended slavery. Hmmm! Yes, I actually heard him say this.

Ohh, ohh, let's start a who has heard the craziest Armstrong Williams' quote... In Spring of 1998, while I was in college, I saw a speech from William's... He said that he was not only in favor of the death penalty, he thought we should string murderers up by the neck in public so people can see what happens to them.

I believe as long as there's full disclosure on someone being paid...it's reasonable. As long as the disclosure is prominent. I have no problem with Kos being a paid consultant..so long as he says so in a prominent fashion so that I can take that into consideration when I read his stuff.

I would have no problem with Armstrong Williams doing the same...as long as it's NOT with my tax dollars and that he gives full disclosure each time he offers his opinion on the topic he's being paid for.

I will say this...I can see now why people get paid to blog. The really good ones that do a lot of research and specialize on a topic...it's hard work. I found that out this week when I started doing research on the WA Goobernatiorial (yeah...I think that's the way it should be spelled) Election. I've put a lot of time and effort into that research. It was kind of a relief to go back to my IRL job today, to be honest.

LOL

I'm probably going to embarrass myself by admitting this, but until this week I had never heard of Armstrong Williams.

Carla,

You were moving a step beyond mere blogging to real reporting. That is a profession, and deserves to get paid.

I did some mention on my own blog

LOL at your spelling, Carla! All hail to the Gooberner! :-)

I think that anyone holding themselves out as a commentator or reporter or journalist, blog or broadcast or print, should fully disclose their sponsorship status (if any) in promoting whatever they're promoting, and should do so clearly every single time they make such a promotion. Kos or Williams. Both failed that test to different degrees. (BAD Kos! BAD Williams!)

I don't like Williams having been paid with our tax money, but as I mentioned that's not an item to throw at Williams, it's an item to throw at the agency that paid him. (BAD Rodney Paige! BAD! BAD! BAD!)

The use of government funding to produce "news" propaganda dates back to at least WWI. During WWII Donald Duck was one prominent beneficiary of such government largesse who failed to disclose his paid endorser status. (BAD Donald! BAD!)

What's new is the recent ruling that says the government should not use our money to deceitfully promote programs under the guise of "news" without full disclosure that it's PAID commentary and promotion, and of the origins of the funding. Damn good rule, and about damn time!What took so long? (That's a rhetorical question.)

I've never been paid a dime for blogging, but I have often been paid for political work, and for my opinions. But that was being paid for my honest expert opinion as a consultant, not to promote that opinion to the public. Who'd listen? (That's another rhetorical question.)

Tully:

Wish I could take credit for the Goobernatorial spelling. I'm blatantly ripping off Joe from AlsoAlso blog. LOL

I think there are some fundamental differences between the Williams and Kos situations...which I blogged about today at Preemptive Karma. In an nutshell however....Williams is a journalist. Kos is not. Williams didn't disclose, Kos did.(Kos had it prominently on his website constantly, from what I understand) I also think the WSJ did some sloppy reporting...as the DFA people are starting to make clear:

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005807.html#872865

There's a big difference between being a journalist who's paid to be a journalist and a blogger who's paid to be a consultant, IMO.

Carla, if they don't prominently acknowledge their fiduciary interests in subjects they're writing/commenting on in immediate proximity to the time they're doing it, to me they're both the same. Hacks. Whores. That goes for Donald Duck as well. I never did trust that toon. Always muttering. (But hey, Tully, say what you really think...)

Not being either a Kos reader or Williams watcher, I have no idea how much disclosure they actually did. Obviously, not enough.

I keep having this flash of Ahnuld's body with Gomer Pyle's head. It's the Goobernator! Must be a blood-alcohol deficit.

LMAO Tully

Or maybe you're closer to sober than you think.

I'm too close to sober, as in stone-cold. I need to relax. Have a beer. Hey, how did this cold English pint of Ur-Marzen Oktoberfest get here? Maybe there is a god!

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice covers my own opinion pretty well. Taking money from an entity to promote its views and not revealing the arrangement is a sin. I'll go a bit farther--I want that PAID ADVERTISEMENT thingie scrolling across the bottom of the screen while they're actually doing the promoting, whether it's for candy or candidates.