Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Well that begs the question - what is a journalist? Or are you saying he's just an editorialist? If so, I think an editorialist should be held to the same conflicts standard - he or she just doesn't have to be objective.
|
I linked to the Kerry-Edwards campaign blog a few posts back to make the point that just because you post stuff on the internet, it doesn't implicitly suggest that you are holding yourself out as an impartial, disinterested observer. Like Kos, it's perfectly possible to hold yourself out as an advocate.
If you hold yourself out as a journalist, you have no business taking money to slant your coverage. Everyone here agrees about that -- your question seems to be, why doesn't that principle extend to others, like bloggers, who say things that the public can read? I think it's a question of whether they're trying to deceive people. Williams was. Kos wasn't. IMHO, the Thune bloggers were, but it's a closer call there.
If you are really bothered by these sorts of conflicts, you should check out astroturfing campaigns. This happens particularly on the GOP side, since the GOP more commonly aligns itself with corporate interests that have more money than popular support, and would like to pretend otherwise. Astroturfing involves fake citizens groups, the planting of paid-for op-ed pieces, and so on. Relatedly, TechCentralStation is a collosal conflict of interest -- it's basically running op-eds as an extension of corporate lobbying efforts, but you have to very closely and read between the lines to try to figure this out.
I will not pretend that these sorts of conflicts never happen on the Dem side, but it's far more pervasive on the GOP side, and the reason is simple: You have monied interests trying to turn that money into the appearance of public support.
