June 24th, 2007
All Blogs Are Publications And All Bloggers Are Publishers
Responding to the continuing uproar over the Federate Media Microsoft People Ready ad, Fred Wilson asserts that his blog is just him, i.e. it’s not a publication and therefore he doesn’t have to follow any rules:
1 - this is my blog, not a publication, and not representative of anyone or anything other than me. in my mind, it is me. if i think it, like it, or do it, it appears here at one point or another.
2 - i don’t subscribe to any code of conduct or rules about what i do on this blog other than it needs to represent me. i try to disclose when i have financial relationships with the companies i blog about but beyond that i don’t try to live up to some journalistic notion of editorial integrity or objectiveness. this is a BLOG.
If Fred weren’t running ads on his bog, I’d say he’s absolutely right. It’s his blog, and anyone who doesn’t like it doesn’t have to read it. But once he started running ads, I think he crossed a line and became a publisher, like any other. He has a responsibility to his advertisers to act within some guideline — he can make up the rules, certainly, but advertisers are entitled to know what they are. Otherwise, how can they make an informed decision about whether to run ads?
The reality is that all blogs are publications — it’s an issue of liability. Once you distribute your words in public, you are liable for what you say, i.e. legally liable. You can’t engage in criminal defamation of libel and say, hey, what’s the big deal, it’s just my blog. And once you involve third parties like advertisers, then you are liable for how your behavior as a publisher impacts them.
Free blogging software and the networked Web may be empowering, but with power comes responsibility. And with commercial intent comes an additional layer of responsibility.
I admire that Fred gives all his proceeds from advertising to charity, but it doesn’t change the fact that advertisers are paying to run their messages on his blog, and to say that this isn’t “publishing” in the traditional sense is just semantics.
One of the big lessons of the Federated Media Microsoft incident is that things haven’t change nearly as much as we like to think they have — the technology is more powerful and more accessible, but publishing is still publishing.
Powered by 
Design by 
» All Blogs Are Publications And All Bloggers Are Publishers » Publishing 2.0: Indicado pelo Pedro Markun -para ler e refletir com calma - blogsmidia
[IMG External link]
just had faith that the authors would disclose (once again most of the bloggers i read already do) and that the audience would know an Ad- is used to advertise products and services. Of course in the last few days there has been a flurry of talk about FM’s Microsoft People Ready campaign so wouldn’t you believe it but today was the day i logged onto TechCrunch and saw the “Inform Collaborate and be Competitive with Dow Jones Solutions” Ad. Fun. i actually thought that TechCrunch was ’sold-out’ for the next few months (at least that is
viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace Boing Boing: MySpace, Facebook mirror class divisions in US society ‘Citizen journalism’ battles the Chinese censors Aggregation / Feed parsing Modules Comparison | groups.drupal.org All Blogs Are Publications And All Bloggers Are Publishers » Publishing 2.0 To see more of my attention stream, see my del.icio.us account. Add me to your network.
All Blogs Are Publications And All Bloggers Are Publishers
Good post.
Regardless of whether a blog carries ads or not, all blogs are publications and all bloggers are publishers and as such have the responsibility of publishers.
It strikes me as more of a pointless exercise in semantics to say that all bloggers are publishers and have the responsibility of traditional publishers.
Many publishers have traditionally made up the rules as they went along, and their advertisers often had no trouble accepting that.
Fred is a pretty predictable product, based on his track record. If he wants to say, and advertisers are willing to accept, that the rules are whatever he says they are whenever he says that, what’s your principled basis for disagreeing with that approach? You’re speaking for advertisers who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
Also, in the Google-verse, the notion that there’s a relationship between bloggers and advertisers is impossible to sustain.
I have always said that the real issue for bloggers was not whether they could become journalists or not (some have, with difficulty), but whether they could become publishers. (some have, with difficulty).
Joe,
I said, precisely, in this and the previous post, that publishers can make up their own rules — but it needs to be clear what they are.
Fred is consistent — in the way that most traditional publishers are consistent. But if he’s going to accept advertising, he can’t just change on a whim and, for example, start swearing in every post.
It’s not about what the standards should be or who gets to decide — it’s that standards MATTER.
And there’s nothing semantic about that.
Scott-
I don’t mean to be the devil’s advocate, but I don’t agree with your argument. I’d argue that Fred could easily change on a whim and start swearing in every post if he wanted to (though I highly doubt he would do that) - there is no one forcing the advertisers to advertise on Fred’s blog. If they don’t like what he says, then they can cancel their ads. It’s entirely his decision whether or not to alienate his advertisers. Sure, Fred would likely lose some revenue if he did that, but so what?
I think it’s the same with all Media Companies - they certainly try to please their advertisers because they are paying the bills, but no one is forcing them to do anything.
Drew,
I don’t disagree with most of what you said, except that if advertisers can’t depend on Fred to uphold some consistent standard, then they’d be foolish ever to advertise on his blog. And his fairly to uphold a consistent standard — whatever HE decides that is — doesn’t serve the needs of Federate Media very well in selling his inventory.
But the fact is that Fred DOES uphold a consistent standard, which is why advertisers do run ads on his blog and why he IS a publisher and his blog IS a publication — even if his standards are different from those of traditional publications — although I really don’t see that they are.
However you want to define “publishing”, I think this points to a more basic question, namely, one on integrity.
To get someone to pay you for your endorsement doesn’t sound right whether you’re a blogger or not.
How would this go down if instead of a “publisher”, I did procurement for a company or, extending the analogy a step, prescribed drugs for my patients, etc.?
Best to avoid this kind of thing in the first place. The intentions can be misconstrued no matter what you do.
This kind of issue came up at the ‘Dark Side of Social Media’ event in London last week. There was much muttering about how people risk revealing too much of themselves (ie the notion of a potential employer blogging for your thoughts/pics on facebook etc etc).
What you post is a record of what you think/how you act. If you do something daft/inappropriate you can’t withdraw that from real life.
Your friends/family/wider society doesn’t forget - and your actions are moderated by this.
Same rules apply to blogs. Say it if you mean it and expect it to be read.
We should understand that what we post is instantly disaggregated (ie can be taken out of context).
In the real world that’s the equivalent of gossip being passed on by people who aren’t a primary source.
Like I say, same rules apply.
He has a responsibility to his advertisers to act within some guideline — he can make up the rules, certainly, but advertisers are entitled to know what they are. Otherwise, how can they make an informed decision about whether to run ads?
Well, if advertisers are genuinely concerned about whether the sites they advertise on have a published policy the price they are willing to pay for ads on sites that don’t have such a policy will fall to reflect the risk they associate with its absence. Much as publishers without ABC-audited circulation figures traditionally command lower advertising rates than those with audited circulations because advertisers discount for the risk that those publishers’ figures are made up.
If Fred starts feeling a pinch as advertisers desert his site for lack of a stated policy or cut the rate they’re willing to pay perhaps he’ll rethink. Making commitments to future action can be very valuable for the person making the commitment. But until then, you’re asking for a type of consumer protection that the market, through prices, already provides. Advertisers can show the value they place on a commitment by advertising, or not advertising, or by advertising for more or less money, and even stating their reasons when they buy.
[…] All Blogs Are Publications And All Bloggers Are Publishers » Publishing 2.0 […]
It is difficult for me to understand how anyone cannot accept that the act of creating content and making it available for others — in any form, by any means — is publishing. You don’t need to run ads, make money, etc. You just need to write the words and put them someplace where others can read them.
And, Leo is right. Bloggers who don’t disclose that they’ve been paid to say something do not represent a special case. Would you go back to a doctor if you found out she had been paid $100k by a pharma company to tell her patients about their new drug? Ethics are ethics.