So Jerome Armstrong has responded to the story of Patrick Hynes and John McCain's Straight Talk America from last week. I’m glad Armstrong wrote, “I've always played by the `rules' in this regard, and either completely not blogged about any candidate I'm working with, openly disclosed the matter beforehand, or stopped blogging completely. I think we've reached the point where some sort of disclosure is the norm, which is fine with me.”  

 

But I notice he also says,

The blogger-criticism part of the blog world strikes me as totally against the spirit of what we are trying to do with the blogs. I hardly think that setting standards above what is done in other media outlets is something that's of vital importance—if it were then the FEC would make it so.”

I also recall that his buddy said, in his disclosure about working for Dean:

But for the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it's technical, not message or strategy. I will also not discuss any of my other clients, including their identities (I have non-disclose agreements to which I must adhere).

 

Some of you may be upset, but there's nothing I can do about it.

(Note that Kos no longer consults, and thus he has nothing more to disclose on this front.)

 

When I was speaking about blogs and campaigns at Bahcesehir University earlier this year, three of the seven questions from the all-Turkish audience were variations of, “How can I trust what I read on blogs?” The Turks got it (perhaps a reflection of rambunctious, run-the-story-we’ll-check-it-later voices in their print media); they understood that Blog X has no credibility and deserves no trust until it earns it.

 

There was a time, until about 2004, where the concept of paying a blogger was so alien and unthinkable, that you could automatically trust that whatever a blogger's faults, he or she wasn't secretly on the payroll of a particular campaign.  If it were just the guys who were working for Thune, the phenomenon of bloggers secretly being on candidate’s payrolls would be a fluke. But I fear this is, or is going to be, the new trend in campaigns – hire a blogger, pay him under the table or through a consulting firm; chalk up their work as “consulting”, “Internet services” or “opposition research.” Then watch him go to work, talking up your candidate and trashing his opponents. 

I have heard a great deal from multiple sources about other cases of bloggers being paid by candidates. I’m checking out each of these, one by one; I’m studying FEC expenditure reports like a Talmudic scholar.  Think of this as a one-time amnesty. If you’re a blogger, and you’re being financially compensated by a candidate, and you have not yet disclosed this fact to your readers, send me an e-mail. Tell me your side of the story. (I suppose a campaign could require its employees to sign a non-disclosure agreement covering not merely proprietary information but the employment itself; however, that strikes me as some pretty shaky ethics on the part of the campaign.) “Come out of the closet,” as it were. Because, sooner or later, you’re going to get caught. If you come out now, you’ll at least get some credit for doing the right thing; if you come out and admit it because I or some other reporter have caught you, it will only get worse. 

Anyway - Armstrong is unsure that blogs need standards “higher than in other media.” Well, for all of their flaws, you don’t see many print, radio, or TV reporters taking money from people they cover. If you do, they generally get burned pretty badly when it comes out, like Armstrong Williams. (We may complain that "that guy writes as if he's collecting a check from the DNC," or we may suspect that this guy or that guy is too clubby with sources in one party or another, but those situations are significantly different than money changing hands.)

 

Simple solution – disclose it, guys. It doesn't have to be done repeatedly, but it's probably best to keep it in a prominent spot on the blog. And after the work is over, try to keep it in a convenient spot. Yes, Kos did disclose his work for Dean, but after he stopped working for Dean, the disclosure went into the archives; any new reader who visited after then had no idea Kos had worked for Dean. It's not a cardinal sin, but I think the proper attitude is to inform the readers whether a particular figure is not just your favorite candidate, but also a former employer.

 

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber offers more thoughts.