Kos throws temper tantrum. And I really don't get why

[thunder rising]

Up on the DK front page Kos is railing about the FTC requiring a blog book reviewer declare a material connection between him/her self and the publisher.

For the life of me I can't figure out why one additional line in the citation that goes
(publisher provided book at no cost) is going to cramp his or anybody else's style.

There are more important things to get wired about. Just think "Baucus" and let the rant begin.

Anybody else have an idea of what this is about?

[DavidDvorkin]

1. The literary blogosphere is up in arms about this rule

It's bizarre and unjustified.

[Gold Metal Flake]

2. I do.

Because I read the entry. Try it!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/13/792679/-FTC-idiocy

[waiting for hope]

3. Not hard to understand -

"This morning, the Federal Trade Commission announced that its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials would be revised in relation to bloggers. The new guidelines (PDF) specified that bloggers making any representation of a product must disclose the material connections they (the presumed endorsers) share with the advertisers. What this means is that, under the new guidelines, a blogger’s positive review of a product may qualify as an "endorsement" and that keeping a product after a review may qualify as "compensation."

I would imagine Skinner et al may not be too happy either.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. Looking at a way to TAX bloggers out of existence...

An alternate to net neutrality?

[thunder rising]

7. Apparently the blogger book reviewers need to review a book on tax law

Sry all, misplace the other response.

The actual value of the book is $0.00. Just because the SMRP is $50.00 is irrelevant.
The line stated in the OP would do it.

[thunder rising]

6. Apparently the blogger book reviewers need to review a book on tax law

[trumad]

5. Really you don't...

It's a double standard that does not apply to newspapers...The minute they get away with this shit is the minute that Bloggers start losing their Independence.

[thunder rising]

8. However, it does cover the situation of the industrial troll. Now they have to identify themselves

[TexasObserver]

9. This is an attempt to police the blogosphere.

I don't like it. The blogosphere works because it is loosely organized and barely managed.

Don't we all know that reviewers might be someone with a financial reason to endorse? Don't we factor that into such reviews?

This whole thing is about authorities and competitors having a basis to stick their nose into the blogs of places just like this one.

[Mimosa]

10. Kos is right on this

This BS supports my long held belief that government bureaucrats are generally idiots who aren't smart enough to get employment in the real world.

For instance, this excerpt from the Kos link:

I think we've already established that Cleland is a fucking moron, so no, of course he's not aware that 1) paid reviewers hold on to their swag, and 2) how many traditional media reviewers DON'T GET PAID to write those reviews. Sure, the folks at the NY Times and New York Review of Books get compensated for their reviews, but in many smaller newspapers and magazines, the reviews are written for free for the same reason bloggers do it -- because they have a passion for books and love to write about them. And yes, they get to keep those review copies. The newspapers don't demand their return.

That Cleland doesn't know simple basic facts known by most people who have worked in newsrooms speaks poorly to the reasoning that went into making these new rules.

"I expect that when I read my local newspaper, I may expect that the reviewer got paid," said Cleland. "His job is to be paid to do reviews. Your economic model is the advertising on the side."

And most people reading reviews expect that companies send out review copies. If I read a video game review site, I assume that video game companies send out review copies (and anyone who reads those sites know, not all games get good reviews). If I read a gadget site, I expect that gadget manufacturers sent review copies to those sites for review. If I read a car site, I assume that car companies loaned out cars (along with insurance) to the reviewers. And yes, if I read a book site, or political site discussing political books, I assume those sites received review copies.

I've worked in publishing. There's no real money made off review copies of books. They get passed on to friends, donated to libraries, et al.

This is clearly a way for gov to stick its nose where it doesn't belong.