wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

calls
thanks for the info but goldberg's bio leads me to think he not someone a lefty like me would trust as unbiased. I'm thinking, just because one guy comes up with "bizarro history" doesn't make it true. do u know if he is also a birther? facts are held in low regard by the right wing these days. good thing the people are catching on.

HJS - no, historically liberals and progressives created fascism. Read Jonah Goldberg's book - "Liberal Fascism" for a quick update of the 130 years of history you've been missing.

Just little tid-bits for you - racial superiority and eugenics were liberal American ideas put into practice by the Nazis - many of whom were vegetarians and wanted to preserve the environment in its natural state. Liberals and progressives created communism and fascism. Both systems like to tell other people what to do, how to live and how much money they can take home, etc. They are evil cousins created by well meaning liberal and progressive thinking taken to extremes - like what Obama, Weiner, Pelosi and Reid want to do to us.

Under fascism, a unholy partnership between the state and corporations was created. The state shot those who wouldn’t go along (can you say US Banking and Auto Industry takeover at government fiscal gun-point?). Under communism the state took over everything, shooting everyone related to the old institutions.

Nice future we face under Bill Aryes’ friend and protégé - that would Barry, if you’re keeping score. Wake up and smell the coffee.

liberal fascist state? aren't liberal and fascist still opposites?

#12 is behind on the issue: ideas have power, political AND economic-- and if someone is paying for them, we need to know.

If Texaco or the Republican Party is funding the "Obama's Missing Birth Certificate--IMPEACH HIM!" site, I want--NEED--to know that.

OMG - I hope this wakes you liberals up to the coming liberal fascist Nanny State that wants to control everything you're doing, all the time and tax it.

PS - I hope WNYC has reported as income all the thousands of books it received over the years. Under the new FCC, I’m sure that will be "taxable" even to a not for profit. Hope no one took those books home - then it will be taxable personal income. Hey, they have to find money everywhere they can.

For purposes of full disclosure: this message has been brought to you by "the vast right-wing conspiracy" to straighten out liberal "knuckle-heads."

EVERYTHING that happens on the internet is logged, tagged and noted--by a number of professional companies. Even our comments here, should we mention an industry or a company, will get scraped and put into a report for that corp. Nearby words, such as "love" or "hate" will help the scrapers automatically tag the "tone" of the message.

Any viral marketing company would be remiss not to be on the boards, dutifully pumping out its own, uh, "corrections" for its clients.

Reader beware . . .

Love NPR! Love you! Love your show! But, more than anything, I LOVE correcting other people's grammar and English usage. So these bloggers about whom you are presently speaking (who get and promote free stuff) may indeed be "flouting" the rules, but they are certainly not "flaunting" them.

With affection,
Harriet in New Jersey

It's disingenuous to pretend that getting free goods and then blogging about them is not subliminal marketing and advertising. But if bloggers want do it, they should have full disclosure. It doesn't seem like too much to ask.
Reviewing products is not illegal!

Post #1 (Amy) is ahead of the game on this issue. If the blog is about ideas and not so much "things"--and especially things for sale (!)--it seems like there won't be any conflicts with the FTC and the readers won't feel duped.

The last caller sounds like how fans feel about the music industry. In the music industry, fans don't mind the small bands "selling out" by hooking up with advertisers, but despise the big record companies that do the same thing.

It seems if you are the little guy, fans want you to get what you can.

The whole internet is an advertisement.

I read they researched the book reviews on Amazon and found 70 percent of them to be ads.

Blogs are probably a higher percentage of ads. At least on TV we used to know when we saw an ad.

Dave

As a business with products for review, it is someone in my position who needs the disclosure really. As a friend put it best, "even Vogue sends samples back."

I often get these low trafficked blogs asking for free items as the only way they will review something. That seems a bit perverse. It is a symbiotic relationship, they need items to be reviewed to make their blog interesting, we need our products reviewed. Once you start charging, just like a magazine, that has "paid advertisements" there is similarity there. Some "mommy bloggers" seem to expect to be paid for reviewing, without disclosing, as well.

I don't think there needs to be regulation, just common sense and a realistic perception of what your blog or item provides.

What about the political web sites that advocate, but that don't disclose their corporate funding?

PR company employees are pushing products on on social networking sites like Twitter without identifying themselves as employees.

Absolutley, they should have to disclose! An advertorial is an advertorial. You get paid by the company/product you're writing about, it's unethical not to disclose it.

What about political blogs? How do I know if the bloggers are on anyone's payroll? This would apply to both the left and right. I remember Armstrong Williams got into trouble for getting money from a group.

Today's article on corporate use of "social media":

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/tobacco-ads-invade-computer-screens-20091006-gl7f.html

"Tobacco companies are increasingly going online to promote their wares as governments ban or regulate their ability to advertise, an Australian researcher has warned.

"Sydney Medical School's Becky Freeman has uncovered what she describes as the "alarming sophistication" of online marketing by the tobacco industry. . . .

"
"One of the most innovative marketing strategies used by a tobacco company online was by the Camel brand, which engaged the online community to help design a new packet," Ms Freeman said.

"The Camel website confirmed that it was the first major pack change in 94 years, and that five million adult smokers had been invited to offer their input."

What if you work for a politician and blog about that politician or other politicians? Do you have to disclose who you work for?

will this affect the right wing supporting PR guy rick berman?

I agree that pay-to-play should be disclosed. But I don't understand why this wouldn't apply to social media too. What's the difference?

Just the opposite -- I accept no ads or money for what I blog about. In fact the new government regulations prompted me to post an "Ad-free Blog" icon to my blog.

http://www.adfreeblog.org/

(My blog is www.foundcurve.wordpress.com)