The Nation: How to Save Journalism

Earlier this week, an article appeared in "The Nation" titled "How to Save Journalism." In the story, the writers discuss an upcoming Federal Trade Commission hearing to address the downsizing of newsrooms nationwide and brainstorm policy measures that could end this decline. The entire article paints a dreary picture of the state of journalism - unjustly so, in my opinion.

It is obviously true that newsrooms at local newspapers and television stations have been forced to cut back in recent years. The FTC places much of the blame for these cuts on the rise of the Internet, an idea the writers of this article correctly dispel. While the Internet certainly hasn't helped most local newspapers to thrive, most of the problems they are facing began well before the Internet told hold on people.

The writers also discuss how government policies need to be enacted in order to "save" journalism. Here is where I disagree with the writers. They argue that journalism should act as the fourth estate and watch over the government. Therefore, they reason, the government should implement policies to help this estate keep watch over the other branches of government. In my opinion, however, it is not the government's responsibility to "save" journalism. It is the responsibility of journalists to adapt to our changing world and ensure that journalism never dies. Additionally, if a government agency stepped in to save, for instance, a local paper, would that local paper print highly unfavorable information afterwards? Probably not, which destroys the purpose of journalism - to keep government in check.

I also had one other final question: Who says journalism is dying? Sure, traditional print media may be declining, but online, independent journalism is thriving. The world needs journalism and it will never die out; it will evolve and change, which is what independent journalism has done when compared against the traditional media.

Blogger Responds to New FTC Rule

As I discussed before, the Federal Trade Commission ruled that bloggers who review products must disclose any ties to the manufacturer of that product because of advertising or other factors. To me, this was a good thing - it gives readers more information by holding bloggers accountable for any conflicts of interest that may arise. However, now at least one blogger has spoken out against this. Britt Aboutaleb, a blogger at Fashionista, said this is actually unfair to bloggers because print reporters are not held to the same standards. She wrote that fashion magazine are not required to publicize that certain products are chosen as features because of an advertising relationship.

While this may be true, it does not change the fact that the intention of the new rule is just and beneficial for readers, which is who writers are working for, in a sense. Furthermore, the blogger made sweeping statements that all magazines do this, which I think is just not true. This past weekend, I visited several magazine offices in New York City — including W, a high-fashion magazine, and Woman's Day, a women's magazine aimed at middle-aged mothers — and found this wasn't the case at every place. The editors at W and Woman's Day said they receive products that they or other members of their team test in order to see which would be best for their readership. At least at these two magazines, the products received are not part of a business relationship where coverage is based on advertising dollars. While I agree that magazines should disclose that they receive these products free of charge, it doesn't change that the new FTC rule was made with good intentions to help blog readers.

In short, I think the FTC should hold print publications to this standard, but that doesn't change the fact that the rule is necessary to improve the quality of the work being done on the Net as well. Would you agree? Or, do you think the FTC should have cleaned up the print industry before moving on to independent blogs or Web sites?

FTC to Change Advertising Rules for Bloggers

A New York Times article that appeared earlier tonight reported that the Federal Trade Commission announced it would be revising rules about endorsements and testimonials that have been on the books since 1980. Beginning December 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with the product their reviewing, including free giveaways or payment from an advertiser, which occurs more frequently. Celebrities must also disclose their ties to companies if they promote a product on a talk show or Web site.

The new rules are no surprise - they've been under consideration since November. This change means that the previously uninhibited flow of free stuff to bloggers may come to an end. Furthermore, as reporter Tim Arango suggests, this move hints that the government might attempt to regulate the Internet in the same way it regulates other forms of media, like television or newspapers.

In my opinion, I view this move as a good thing. Bloggers need to be held accountable for their potential conflicts of interest in the same way as television or print reporters. Hopefully it doesn't mean that more regulations are on the way for the Net, but this change, as its stands, is a positive one and will help readers to get the facts, rather than misinformation bloggers could have been paid to provide from advertisers.