For the past couple of years, the Federal Trade Commission has been actively involved with the issue of
"Internet neuutrality" on the great world wide web.
In essence, the Government-run watchdog has been keeping an eye on Internet access providers, to ensure that users are not being denied proper legal access and/or being overcharged for goods and services.
Also, the underlying intent is to guarantee a free flow of traffic regardless of whether the data was accessed by way of an internet connection (ground-based) or over wireless cellular networks.
Consequently, ComCost ended up locking horns with the FTC, which has resulted in an ongoing legal battle.
Comcost, sanctioned for allegedly hindering users from accessing some file-share programs, has complained to all within earshot (and to the courts, too), that the FTC has no business telling it how to run its network (especially when the profit margin is adversely affected).
Meanwhile, the FTC has responded to complaints in other quarters, too.
If you recall, recent news reports revealed that a handful of enterprising bloggers were touting products on the Internet without reporting to readers that freebies were involved.
For this reason, the FTC crafted new rules and regulations, which go into effect on December 1 (2009) and toss the glare of the spotlight on the issue.
A blogger who reviews a product, who fails to disclose that payments or valuable gifts were received in exchange for promoting the featured item, could find themselves facing a "cease and desist" order from the FTC.
Failure to abide by such an order could result in a money penalty being imposed to the tune of $11,000.00 per offense.
The "gifters" are not off-the-hook, either, and may also be sanctioned and/or fined.
Celebrity endorsers are also encluded in the new rules.
In sum, any individual who willingly or knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresents the facts, may be penalized.
Not surprisingly, "big brother's" ubiquitious entrance on the blogger scene has rankled many.
Some, have labelled the unprecedented FTC action aan assault on free speech.
Others, of reasonablly sound mind, applauded the government for regulation long overdue.
In a nutshell?
Say good-bye to the rugged frontier out in the wild online!
The dailies have, rightfully so, noted that the rules may not necessarily apply to professional journalists.
Understandably.
Journalists are taught all about ethics and standards in their degree programs.
No doubt, the more seasoned cub reporter is keen to the fact that sometimes it is also a question of walking a thin line.
The Los Angeles Times recently noted for the record that staff members at the daily (including reviewers) may not cover individuals or institutions which they have a financial relationship with.
Through my own experience, I have discovered that it can be tricky!
For example, years ago I penned a fashion column for the Province Newspaper (Vancouver, B.C.).
One day, a representative from the Men's Fashion Association of America, invited me to attend the fall fashion previews which were being held over a four-day period in Los Angeles.
The organizer noted that the Association would foot the bill for Hotel lodging at the Biltmore (down town) and that all other expenses would have to be incurred by the newspaper and/or the fashion editor in question.
After conducting a bit of research, I learned that these "junkets" were pretty common for journalists; in fact, quite a few of the top fashion editors in the country from major publications (and dailies) would be attending the Men's Fashion Association event on the West Coast with lodging "gratis".
So, I approached my boss with the bid to journey below the border to cover the prestigious fashion show extravaganza for the Province.
Unfortunately, my fashion editor "Kay Alsop" asserted that the newspaper was without funds to pay for the airfare ($200), so - after cofirming that the morning paper was inclined to publish any features I rustled up from attending, I opted to pay for the airfare out of my own pocket (curiously, Kay Alsop jetted over to Europe to cover the fashion runways in Paris & Milan, all-expense-paid by the Southam publisher!).
In the final analysis, it was a three-way deal.
More recently, though, I turned down an offer by John Wildman at AFI Dallas to "take care" of me when I attended the festival earlier this year.
Because I report on "behind-the-scenes" issues at Festivals, and pen reviews with a leaning toward the theatre-goer, I felt that my indenpendence (and integrity) may be compromised, so I graciously declined.
I travelled on my own dime at a time when I couldn't really afford to, but felt I did the right thing in my heart of all hearts, after-the-fact.
A few months ago one incident arose which could have conceivably fallen under the accusing eye of the FTC.
A gentleman contacted me by e-mail to ask if he could feature an innovative new pair of eyeglasses on my blog which he alleged would revolutionaize the industry.
"I'll pay you for placement," he noted at the end of his pitch.
I responded by noting that the Tattler did not accept $$$ to feature a product on the web site.
However, I noted that if his miraculous product was of interest to my readers, I would certainly mention it (without payola required)
A short time later, another sleazy situation arose, which definitely left a bad taste in my mouth (and required that I follow strict guidelines in the future in respect to my contact with celebrities (!), publicists, whomever!
Initially, I attended a charity fashion show one night, and after-the-fact published a post on the festivities the next day.
A society page item, in a nutshell.
Shortly thereafter, actress Christina DeRose (who co-hosted the fundraiser) ziipped off an e-mail to thank me for the excellent press coverage.
As a token of her appreciation (and that of the proprietor of a shoe store featured on the runway DeRosa had an association with) she expressed her desire to gift me with a pair of shoes of my choosing in stock at the Melrose-based store.
The gesture seemed innocent enough.
For starters, it wasn't a case of a "cart before the horse".
I penned the post without expectation of anything in return.
Secondly, it should be noted, that due to surgery on my foot last year I have a problem with designer shoes.
On the trail, other newsies and clients have undoubtedly noticed that I tend to sport dumb-ass shoes.
For two good reasons: comfort and to ease the pain.
So, the shoes being offered up would - no doubt - end up sitting in the closet unworn.
It's not as if I needed to sell my soul for a pair of expensive clod-hoppers!
I also believe that it is not only important to be able to "give" in life, but also be able to "receive".
So, I e-mailed back a thank you note, and informed Christina I might drop into the shop one day to pluck 'em up without much notice!
Curiously, a few days passed without any word back.
Then, out-of-the-blue, a communication arrived in which she made a pitch for me to conduct an interview with the owner of the trendy upscale shop (with a focus on the popular shoe line worn by "stars").
The real shocker?
In an another e-mail she noted in "confidence" that she didn't mind "sponsoring" me, but that we must be "discreet".
Huh?
This poor damsel was having real delusions, alright!
Needless to say, I didn't follow thru, and kept my integrity intact.
Of course, when it comes to previews for Movies, like other reviewers I avail myself of the free screenings.
It is standard procedure.
But, even though I often promote the local Revival houses to keep their doors open, I stand in line on those occasions like every other ticket-holder (and pay for my own way).
At industry-events, yes, I scoff up a bit of finger-food and a cocktail or two.
For most industries, that kind of promotion is the norm, and acceptable across the board.
At least I sleep at night!
No comments:
Post a Comment