Michael Arrington on the 'pollution of the blogosphere' - Valleywag Comments

Michael Arrington on the 'pollution of the blogosphere'

senori — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:16:31 PDT

I should think the difference between the two is the context. If the blogger is writing on his blog, without any suggestion that the content is an advertisement or that he is being paid for it, then it is obviously inappropriate as he is presenting his paid opinions as an unpaid opinion. However, giving a comparable opinion in an advertisement, even if it would be the same text, is not equivalent; it is an advertisement, and it is therefore clear that he is writing it as such. The ethical difference, I think, should be clear.

senori

Michael Arrington on the 'pollution of the blogosphere'

caletucker — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:14:51 PDT

So basically what Arrington is saying is if the endorsement is in a bordered box, it's ok. But if it's in a blog entry with no box to distinguish the endorsement, ala PPP, it's not ok. Thank God for CSS!

caletucker

Michael Arrington on the 'pollution of the blogosphere'

OpenTransport — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:09:19 PDT

This is like Ann Coulter appearing in a Halliburton ad, explaining what makes her 'business' jihad-ready. Awesome.

The biggest travesty is that none of the bloggers, supposedly out there to filter corporate nonsense for their readers, actually explained (or questioned) what "people-ready" means! It's one of the least compelling MSFT ad campaigns I've seen in years, and if Om, Arrington and other semi-respected tech pundits can't figure it out and explain it in terms that make sense, Ballmer and co. should pull the campaign and go back to welcoming me to the Social.

OpenTransport

Michael Arrington on the 'pollution of the blogosphere'

jmdecombe — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:02:20 PDT

Thanks for providing a valuable service to the community, that is, helping bloggers to grow up and become trustworthy reporters that do not endorse things "whatever they mean" someday.

jmdecombe