Yet Another Witch Hunt

The blogosphere is buzzing about buzz in the blogosphere.

A WSJ article by Rebecca Buckman raised some questions about the buzz caused by FON getting a bunch of buzz because of prominent bloggers on the company's advisory board blogging about a fund raising event:

>

[from WSJ.com - Blog Buzz on High-Tech Start-Ups Causes Some Static]

[...]

Some lawyers and academics with expertise in the Internet said the disclosures by the FON advisers were adequate and appropriate. But Bob Steele, an ethics specialist with the Poynter Institute, a journalism organization in St. Petersburg, Fla., says bloggers with financial ties to companies -- disclosed or not -- have "competing loyalties" that could taint their independence as writers. "It's still a problem," he says. While many bloggers don't consider themselves journalists, anyone putting information into the public domain about people or companies has certain ethical responsibilities, Mr. Steele says.

That can be a murky issue in today's clubby blogosphere, where many people including venture capitalists, lawyers and journalists write about Web issues and companies -- and often, each other -- with little editing. The rebound in Silicon Valley's economy, coupled with the popularity of cheap, easy-to-use blogging tools, means there are more aspiring commentators than ever opining about start-ups and tech trends on the Web. And increasingly, it is difficult to discern their allegiances.

My perspective is strongly structutred by the individuals involved. I know and trust David Weinberger, and so if he has taken an advisory role with the company, I believe that the company management is likely to be intelligent, as would anyone else who would read David writings. The web, and the world of blogging, is about personalities. But as usual this story, and those suggesting all sorts of nefarious inside dealing, are trying to make sense of it with the wrong lens, as if these are organizations granted their charter to fill the airwaves from the government.

Bloggers are individuals, in general. And as such, what we write on the web is personal, biased, unfiltered, unregulated, and, yes, free. Free as in free speech, Free as in uncensored. Free as in personal, idiosyncratic, and even unpopular. I make no avowal of independence, and anyone who says I should is confusing me with the Washington Post. This is writing, and it is published, but that does not make me Jimmy Olsen, the cub reporter for the Daily Planet. It's a kind of media, yes, but not old school media.

But I also agree that its a good idea -- if you want to retain credibilty -- to be transparent. Doc Searls comments on this are dead on:

[from The Doc Searls Weblog : Thursday, February 9, 2006]

[...] when I talked with David Weinberger and David Isenberg at Berkman on Tuesday, both told me their primary interest in Fon was not financial, but rather in getting Internet service to the less developed world. They also said this was the primary purpose of their advisory board involvement as well.

I don't know if they told that to Rebecca Buckman, but I think it's significant.

Peter Drucker used to talk about how most businesses aren't started, or even run, just for profit. Or just because some future CEO woke up one day and said "I have a deep urge to return value to some shareholders." Most companies are started for the purpose of pursuing a passion, and no small number are driven by a passion for doing good in the world.

Everybody I've spoken to about Fon, and founder Martin Varsavsky, says he's doing the company more for love than money.

Yet that's not where we look for interest conflicts. It's always around money.

A little more:

Mr. Varsavsky, FON's founder and chief executive, says none of the board members who publicized FON did so "because they're going to get paid. ... These are people who love what FON is about." He says the advisers weren't even sure FON would be a for-profit company when some signed up.
But University of Minnesota journalism professor Jane Kirtley says that "even if it's prospective money, it seems to me the prudent thing" for advisers would be to disclose that relationship on their blogs. Ms. Kirtley directs the Minneapolis school's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law

Point taken.

Here's another: We're still learning here. Up until a couple years ago, some of my own disclosures were of the "I'm on the advisory board of _____" variety. Now I point to a bio page where all my advisory board memberships are listed, along with the fact that they involve equity. Now I'm wondering if even that is enough. In fact, I think it isn't.

Looking around, I think best model may be the Disclosures page of John Palfrey, Executive Director of the Berkman Center. It's right below links to Berkman and his bio.

So I just changed my own Bio page to Bio & Disclosures. I already had an anchor I could point to at the disclosures section.

I'm going to do the same, as soon as possible.

But I am still concerned with the subtext.

• It should be ok for bloggers, even prominent ones, to make money, through advising clients and being paid for that in cash, stock, or whatever.
• The great majority of bloggers, even prominent ones, do not make much money directly from blogging.
• The reason that they become prominent, influential bloggers is because of the depth of their experience, insight, and understanding of the world they write about. In the case of tech bloggers, in the world of tech.
• Companies have a right to ask for advice, and if they can afford it, to get the best advice they can.
• Ipso Facto: Tech companies looking for the best advice are likely to include leading bloggers in the mix. These folks might want or at least accept remuneration for their time and trouble.
• And it is alright for a blogger to tell the world why she thinks company X is cool, even if she is a paid advisor. Note that they are prominent because they are trusted, not gasbags. If they start flogging all sorts of junk, they will loose their prominence, very quickly.
• It is sufficient for a blogger to state his affiliation with the company in every post mentioning it, and perhaps on a bio/disclosures page as Doc is recommending.

Bloggers are playing an important role in this new world, where the traditional gatekeepers have less sway. But the aren't the old gatekeepers, and looking at me and /Message like I am the New York Times or ABC News is laughable. There is no organization, no corporate policies, nothing. Just me. Stowe. The person.

I have my ethics, such as they are, and goals, and biases. If you read what I write, it's fairly obvious. The best bloggers are pretty transparent.

So more than Doc's disclosure is too much. We don't need some sort of regulation, we don't need bloggers to take either vows of silence or vows of poverty, and we don't need a witch hunt every time some A-lister stumbles across a jewel of a tool, joins the advisory board, and tells the world about it.

tags: rebecca+buckman, doc+searls, david+weinberger, FON, blogger+ethics, blogging, the+new+gatekeepers

Comments

[jeneane]

You got a witness up in here, Stowe! Amen.

[kenjimori]

I first got to know the news in joi.ito.com and soon learned Joi is on the advisory board. Recently, Varsavsky declared in his blog that the news was intentionally released first in his blog, not through traditional media like WSJ.

But since it came out outside traditional media, it is readers' freedom / responsibility /fun to find the trustful resources. And I think that is blogging is all about and nothing wrong with it. The question was, in my opinion, about being a journalist, not about being a blogger.

[Bill Seitz]

It seems pretty obvious and reasonable for every blogger who has any such affiliations to document them on their About page. If you have time to blog, then you have time to disclose. If you get caught not disclosing then you get egg on your face.

I think that's sufficient as a ruleset.