March 05, 2005
Blogging 4 Bucks
Could it? Would it? Did it? happen here? Editors on this site are fair game to those with an agenda and virtually unlimited funds. How would we know if any of us have been approached to promote an agenda? How do we know it hasn’t happened already?
Some of us are extremely passionate about certain issues.
It could be said that those so passionate wouldn't need to be paid to help promote an agenda.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an editor.
Many who join the threads have very 'disciplined' ideas of how things should be and who should make them happen.
Is it really a bad thing to pay someone to promote an idea? Does it depend on who is getting paid? Is it in how they promote and the public access they have that makes the difference?
I heard a story about a blogger being paid $3,000/mth to help promote. (Sorry - I tried but can't find it.) Was this wrong if the person simply believed in a certain idea? Letting readers know about the money would be a good idea.
We could all be in trouble soon if new laws pertaining to blogging are passed.
Could this site, and myself, soon be fined for this:
The coming crackdown on blogging
A link to a story I am talking about? Probably not, BUT soon there may be laws that say we cannot link to websites belonging to Politicians themselves and we may not be able to display any type of information put out by any campaign.
A quote from the story linked above:
"Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines."
Another quote:
"The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law.
Certainly a lot of bloggers are very much out front. Do we give bloggers the press exemption? If we don't give bloggers the press exemption, we have the question of, do we extend this to online-only journals like CNET?"
Another quote from the article:
"Then this is a partisan issue?
Yes, it is at this time. But I always point out that partisan splits tend to reflect ideology rather than party. I don't think the Democratic commissioners are sitting around saying that the Internet is working to the advantage of the Republicans.
One of the reasons it's a good time to (fix this) now is you don't know who's benefiting. Both the Democrats and Republicans used the Internet very effectively in the last campaign."
Where is all this going?
Will we have to stop bickering with each other over the issues because we may make a statement that sounds to much like the candidate?
From being paid to blog to being fined for blogging. Will these political websites have to close their doors?
Let me first stipulate that I don’t get paid for doing this and given the undisciplined (a good thing by the way) preferences I see on this blog, I don’t think anyone else does either.
BUT if someone were being paid, I wouldn’t care as long as they didn’t bore me with an endless repetition of talking points. In that case, I think we would all come to understand the slant and avoid his/her posts. I also suppose that after awhile the blog manager would get sick of it and ban the person – not for taking money, but for the much greater sin of being boring and repetitious
These proposed rules are another example of a regulation that is unnecessary and harmful.
The reason I like blogging is because it allows the freedom to say what I want. I usually enjoy reading the partisan and even some of the outrageous comments of my opponents. I don’t want to limit my or their comments. You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. The only way to know the truth is to be able to see the whole spectrum, which includes inevitably some non truth.
Thanks for bringing this threat to our attention.
Just last night I posted Zell Miller’s speech from the RNC, and I was desended upon like fresh roadkill by vultures. My blog is really about renovating my home, but I thought that since it was “my” blog, I could inject my own beliefs into it.
I ended up taking the post down, and reposting that I wasn’t a radical right-wing conspirator, with adding some of my more “liberal” views on other touchy subjects.
I wouldn’t think I could legally get into trouble posting Zell’s speech, but I guess if liberals need more to control, blogging is a new venture for them. I think passing legislation for this is down-right silly.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 5, 2005 12:42 PMIf you are opposed to such legislation, you may want to consider a contribution to the ACLU. The ACLU will fight any such proposals tooth and nail since it would have serious 1st Amendment abridgement consequences.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2005 12:53 PMI don’t get paid for this either. That’s why I want a Ph.D.: so I can get paid to endlessly spout my opinion and sit around all day writing.
Incidentally, I would be willing to blog for a corporate sponsor, but not for someone who wanted to control my content.
Posted by: Chops at March 5, 2005 01:04 PMChops - I’m with you. I would love to be paid to spout off.
Having a Ph.D should not be a requirement. There are plenty of intelligent people with opinions that should be considered valuable who do not possess degrees in anything.
When I tell people I am doing this, I am asked - So how much do you get paid to do that?
My answer - Nothing.
I’m sure many of you have seen the same look I receive when I say that.
Of course I then get asked why I would do it, or anything, for nothing.
I say that I like to blast my opinion around the world. (they easily believe that)
Then I say - I like to pick the topic, say what I believe about something and discussing it with people.
Being paid for it would be the icing on the cake.
I could care less if anyone is paid or not.
I just enjoy reading youall and every now and again putting in my 2 cents worth even if no one else agrees or if youall think I’m crazy.
A problem of monetary compensation is that it has the potential to breed an almost religious devotion to an idea, even in the face of logical dissent. You may support an idea, but without a paycheck tying you to it, you are free to question and change your mind. But after you’ve received money to support an idea, airing your changed views will have more consequence (especially with your former sponsors), and can lead to an unwillingness to voice your changed opinion if it even gets that far.
Posted by: AParker at March 5, 2005 07:03 PMBurning a flag is protected free speech, but “blogging” your opinion is not?!
Free speech is a dangerous thing. It speaks of liberty. We Americans have given so much of it away, in the name of security, it has turned on us, and now they are coming for us!
The powers that be cannot control us and that is a fearsome thing for them. If they cannot control us, they must destroy us. How sad.
“Longstreet”
Posted by: Longstreet at March 5, 2005 07:23 PMPower will always desire to suppress dissent. That is why power is corrupting. It seeks to preserve itself in the face of any and all odds. Power and retaining it seek to serve their own ends by any non-self defeating means. That is why war provides the only cover for suppressing dissent to so many, and why attempts to suppress dissent only rear up during wartime. It is the only time so many can be made so ready to support suppression of dissent.
Suppression of dissent is never tolerated in a democracy in times of peace. Hence, it is wise to be very vigilant when one has war time leaders, regardless of party.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2005 07:46 PMShouldn’t we celebrate the fact that our politicians are actually agreeing on something?
quote from link
“One of the reasons it’s a good time to (fix this) now is you don’t know who’s benefiting.”
They don’t know which side was helped more - if either.
They can agree that one side or the other may benefit more, and since neither side wants to be hurt by blogging, they will try and stop us.
The time is coming for bloggers to make or break political careers via the internet. I can see why they are concerned.
Posted by: dawn at March 5, 2005 07:46 PMLisa-
As my old professor would say, everybody works from partial information. As it is, Zell Miller’s speech is a pretty inflammatory piece of work. The message you sent was one guaranteed to get a very partisan, very strong result, one you may have not anticipated because you knew things or believed things about your politicals leanings.
I’d say comment on what other people say more than you quote. If a source is controversial, but your opinion is not as much, wholesale presentation of that argument in the text may shift weight away from your personal point, and make others think you’re more extreme than you are. I’d say be careful about the center of gravity of what you write.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 5, 2005 08:56 PMHey, let them shutdown the blogging community…or try! This may be just what we need to get some lifetime politicians (both parties) out of office. We all complain about how the dems and repubs can’t agree on anything (except maybe to agree about disagreeing). Yet, these folks just keep getting elected….time after time. Try to shut down our first ammendment rights and see how fast we vote your a@@ out of office.
Posted by: Tom at March 5, 2005 09:23 PMI am not surprised that BushCo wants to shutdown Blogs. Since the Republicans control the Media, any real news are a threat to them.
Posted by: Aldous at March 6, 2005 06:58 AMAldous, that is such a biased and unworthy comment. The Republicans don’t control the media any more than the Democrats do. They have more access due to the bully pulpit, but their actual control is quite limited.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2005 09:47 AMWho the hell would pay for my comments/opinions ?
I’m honored that anyone would even read them!
When they come after bloggers, the ROAR they hear will cross all party lines!
Posted by: Beagle at March 6, 2005 12:15 PMDavid,
The claim of ‘BushCo’ controlling the media has been out there so long that some people will believe it. Of course some will believe it just because he is a republican and they don’t like him. Then there are those who want to keep it going just to keep things stirred up.
If they had such control, the ‘leaks’ that make them look so bad would NEVER happen. Unless, of course, they control those too.
This will be the main problem of blogging. The ability to say whatever untruth we want and have it spread like wild fire.
Hopefully those that create the threads on this site will continue to use the truth and not use this as a platform to create rumors to oust someone just because…
Posted by: dawn at March 6, 2005 02:19 PMQuite right, Dawn. I am very confident WatchBlog will never become a platform purely for propaganda. The writers at WatchBlog are a caliber or few above most bloggers, IMHO, utilizing facts and journalism to support their positions. I have even witnessed writers here change their opinions as a result of the dialogue and debate. I even saw two writers switch columns as a result of their participation here. That tells me, most of the writers place a very high value on seeking the truth and verifying their suspicions as opposed to so many bloggers who have little but opinion to blab about and get PO’d when facts to the contrary are presented.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2005 02:38 PM“I am very confident WatchBlog will never become a platform purely for propaganda.”
This is why, when blogging really catches on, Watchblog should be right up there with those who can be trusted for the truth. ‘Fair and Balanced’ as Fox News would say.
A place where people will return regularly to find out what is going on and what people really think about certain issues.
Dawn,
Do you have any contacts you could forward to me who would pay me for blogging? I’d be very interested. :)
I read briefly that the FCC commisioners comments have been essentially retracted, or disavowed/played down.
The idea of the FCC treating blogs as regulated campaign contributions is ludicrous on it’s face. It only serves to highlight the utter bankruptcy and unconstitutional standard of the current method of regulating campaign contributions in general.
McCain/Feingold, for instance, is a slippery slope. If the first amendment was meant to protect anything it was political free speech, and not just the ‘private’ kind either.
Today, the consensus seems to be in favor of regulating the ‘corrupting influence of money’ in politics. Based on this bad standard regulating blogging is what you will inevitably get. After maxing out ‘maximum contributions’, the loopholes become ‘non-monetary’ contributions, such as voicing support in other forums.
Posted by: ericsimonson at March 6, 2005 03:45 PM“Do you have any contacts you could forward to me who would pay me for blogging? I’d be very interested. :)”
Not at this point eric. Wish I did.
I would only hope that if I ever received money for this, I would not be corrupted by it.
Posted by: dawn at March 6, 2005 05:30 PMThat would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for sure. The amount of pressure that would have to be brought to bear on the bloggers and the internet portals and providers they use to put info out here would be outrageous.
The music industry is having a hard enough time getting peer sites and internet providers to give up names of people who are clearly breaking the law…good luck trying to slap the cuffs on me for using my freedom of expression. We had a little Revolution over this stuff once, if the pols think it can’t happen again, good luck there buddies, try to shut down freedom of speech all over the internet.
Even better I can safely assume from other comments I have read here and there not everyone is even an American who blogs here, so good luck on that overzealous politician guy or girl.
Don’t be too sure about the outrage. Truth of the matter is that few people use the internet in proportion to population. Of those few, how many are political and would care? We are a minority folks. I fear we would end up like Gay Marriage where people who never meet us would scorn us for being different…
Its a Brave New World indeed.
Posted by: Aldous at March 6, 2005 11:01 PM
