Skip to main content

View Diary: California starts regulating political blogging. Why? (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But, you advocate for the blogosphere... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mimi, Dianna

    ...to be treated on par with the MSM, no? (And, just as a matter of technological evolution, most here would state that's happening, whether we'd like it or not.)

    Professionally speaking, while there's more paid manipulation of the (MSM) press, nowadays, than ever--and I find it reprehensible--I would beg to vociferously differ. (i.e.: Roger Ailes is at Fox News, it's self-evident from whereof he speaks--perhaps here moreso than other places, since i.d. disclosure is optional at DKos--based upon public knowledge about him.) To argue that ethics are no more enforced in the MSM than they are online, especially when far too often you don't even know the identity of the person behind the screen name--is, inherently, downright Orwellian double-speak. Sorry, but it just is.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:25:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, it's not. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, eparrot

      It's regulating one form of media while leaving others alone to self-regulation.  Treating them on par with each other would require regulating both, or neither.

    •  It doesn't look like the law ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... forces a person's screen name needs to be "outed" in the disclosure of the payment.  It looks like the report will indicate that John Doe (not "PaidShillForMyCampaign2014") received a payment of $500 to post a positive or negative statement about the candidate or issue.

      (b) When reporting an itemized expenditure pursuant to Sections 84211(k) or 84303, a committee, pursuant to Section 82013(a), must specifically describe amounts paid by the committee to provide favorable or unfavorable content or commentary on a candidate or ballot measure by
      (1) Providing content for or posting on a web site or a web log (commonly known as a “blog”), whether one’s own or another’s;
      (2) Providing content for or posting on a social media site;
      (3) Creating video content to be posted online.
      (c) When reporting these expenditures, whether the payment is made directly or through a third party, committees must include as much specificity as possible, including the amount of the payment, the payee, the name of the person providing services, and the name of the website or the URL on which the communications are published in the first instance. The committee must report the expenditure for online content using the expenditure code “WEB” and a specific description.

      Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

      by Hey338Too on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:40:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The enforcement challenge will be in (3+ / 0-)

        people who are paid by the campaign for other services who post online in their own time, especially on short-form media like twitter.

        This isn't an issue when the person is a campaign manager, but it gets greyer if they person is say an accountant who works for many, many people.

        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:48:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But the law seems to read that the payment... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, FG

          ... is tied directly to providing some form of content, right?  

          must specifically describe amounts paid by the committee to provide favorable or unfavorable content or commentary on a candidate or ballot measure
          So if you are a paid accountant for a campaign but provide web content, social media commentary or video on your own time, then the campaign shouldn't need to report your "effort" - or am I reading that incorrectly.

          Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

          by Hey338Too on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:02:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Suprising (0+ / 0-)

        I am really surprised to see this on the front page.  It is clearly a law to force corporate interests to be more transparent about their political PR and those who are their paid publicists.  This is no different than any other disclosures, and should be discouraged.

        The only people who are going to be hurt by this are the corporations that significantly rely on paid 'astroturfers' and those who astroturf.  I never though that Daily Kos would be in such a category.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site