I haven’t written much about last week’s “stakeholder meeting” on Internet lobbying, because I came away confident that the PDC had listened to our concerns, and is unlikely to make the mistake of attempting to regulate the political blogosphere. In fact, my hope is that in any new rule making, the PDC actually clarifies its current stance by explicitly exempting from reporting requirements bloggers like me.
The PDC’s current media exemption reads as follows:
“Persons who are working members of the print or broadcast media preparing news reports, feature articles or editorial comment.”
Obviously, both times and technology have changed to the point where this definition needs to be expanded to included “print, broadcast or electronic media,” and I doubt there would be any opposition to such a change. But there is also a need for the PDC to clarify what they mean by “working members,” and I would hope that they would construe this term as liberally as possible, for to do otherwise would create an untenable and unfair legal disparity between traditional and new media.
For example, consider my dual role as both an independent blogger and a paid talk radio host. Does it make any sense that my direct advocacy in one medium would be exempt from PDC reporting requirements while the same advocacy in the other might result in a reporting violation and a fine? No, of course not. But unless the PDC explicitly grants bloggers a media exemption, our status will eventually be challenged via a complaint, or before the courts.
The PDC can avoid this hassle and expense for all parties, by proactively expanding the old media exemption to fit the new media reality. And my hope is that this is exactly what they will do.
Of course it makes sense to treat you differently per medium. You’re not anywhere near a journalist. You’re many things: hack, amen blogger, gonadless man boy, party of one, gay, retarded, intellecutally challenged, but nowhere near a journalist, well yellow journalist maybe… but I digress.
By your definition, World of Warcraft dorks should be considered as providing editorial comment too.
Your fight to gain some sort of legitimization by credible news organizations is akin to the gay marriage movement. Just because you want to redefine a word, does not mean that you gain credibility.
I’m just sprayin’..
re 1: You are incoherant. Your words do not even rise to the level of blabbering.
A prattling 9 year old is what you sound like.
@1 You can say exactly the same thing about:
(a) Some of the Seattle Times’ reporters;
(b) All of the Seattle Times’ editorial writers;
(c) All of Fox News’ reporters.
So what’s your point?
Goldy,
Who could make the decision to expand the exemption? Is that a PDC decision, or can the legislature make that change?
“…my hope is that in any new rule making, the PDC actually clarifies its current stance by explicitly exempting from reporting requirements bloggers like me.
The PDC’s current media exemption reads as follows:
“Persons who are working members of the print or broadcast media preparing news reports, feature articles or editorial comment.”
OK, explanation please. Exactly WHAT “reporting requirements” are the media exempt from, that bloggers also should be exempt from?
I go to PDC reports to see who contributed how much a campaign, and to see where campaigns are spending their money. Sounds like you’re discussing something else, some other part of PDC rules and regs?
Roger @5,
The PDC is specifically exploring whether bloggers who advocate for or against legislation should be required to disclose contributions and expenditures as lobbying activities. So for example, if I were to encourage my readers to contact Frank Chopp and urge him to cut off the BIAW at their knees, I would be required to disclose all of the contributors to my site, whereas if I were to make the same statements on the radio, I would be exempt from disclosure requirements.
The essential question here is whether blogging should be defined as lobbying or journalism?
Anyone covered by Washington’s shield law should be exempt from PDC jurisdiction. And Washington’s shield law is broad enough to encompass on-line journalists.
While I think Goldy has some absolutely dopey opinions on more topics than Carter’s got pills, the thought of him being frog-marched down the corridors of the PDC to their special interrogation room isn’t a consummation devoutely to be wished by anyone. I’ll stick to his visage on a dart board, thank you.
Free speech and a free press either mean something to all of us, or they mean nothing to any of us. This includes efforts to resurrect the hateful and misnamed “Fairness Doctrine.”
Think on it…if that’s brought back and bloggers are made subject to campaign disclosure laws, it’s but a wee stretch to make bloggers subject to either the Fairness Doctrine or something equally perfidious.
Ideas belong in the marketplace – that’s the forum best suited to evaluating and eventually passing judgment on them.
The Piper
At first I thought this was an easy question. Then I tried to figure out how to “game” the system, get avoid public disclosure requirements under the guise of “journalism”.
In other words, I tried to think like a Republican – or at least, like the BIAW and Dino Rossi.
So what could they do? I guess they could turn their blog into a “talking points” communication system, avoiding the cost of meetings, phone banks, and mailings, and paid directly by contributors they never need to disclose. But that’s the best I can come up with.
But Stephan’s blog seems to fill that role (as well as quite a few others, including the Drudge Report). While they were effective when blogging was in their infancy, the rise of tens of thousands of bloggers have diluted their impact. It’s become a marketplace of ideas, as envisioned by John Stuart Mills.
Ironically, the whole reason why campaign finance and disclosure laws were put into place was because of the high cost, limited airspace, and inordinate impact of broadcast advertising. It’s the cost and impact of that advertising which makes it possible for someone to “buy” an election by flooding the airwaves with ads which their opponant cannot effectively counter with limited resources. The rise of the internet and tens of thousands of bloggers have tended to dilute that impact – as the recent Greggoire/Rossi campaign seems to show. So it makes sense to require public disclosure of who is behind all those ads on the TV. But it is strange to NOT require such similar disclosure with respect to newspaper editorials, but not to bloggers.
Also, one of the key differences between the internet and broadcast journalism is that the internet is a demand-based system – you have to search for the site, or at least stumble upon it in your search for something else. You are an active participant in reaching out for the information.
Broadcast journalism is exactly the opposite – it is “broadcast” to the world at large, and you will receive the message unless you turn off your radio or TV, or at least change the channel. You are a passive receiver of that information.
Erratum:
“…But it is strange to NOT require such similar disclosure with respect to newspaper editorials, but not to bloggers….”
Should read:
“…But it would be strange to NOT require such similar disclosure with respect to newspaper editorials, but to require it of bloggers….”
Goldy @6, thanks for spelling out the issue for us.
It occurs to me that if there were bloggers who were funded by a certain interest group (e.g. BIAW) and those bloggers in turn were urging their readers to call Frank Chopp and tell him to implement the BIAW agenda…well, then maybe a case could be made to include bloggers, or at least those bloggers whose messages were directly in service to their funders. But how the hell could you prove anything, in that regard?
Rober @ 10: And how would that example differ from a newspaper editorial, urging the same course of action?
My how the worm has turned you fucking hypocrite…just three years ago you celebrated the trampling of the First Amendment as radio talk show hosts were held (for a brief moment by a moronic judge) to be campaign contributions. You approved like a trained monkey. Now the shoe is on your foot and you’re bitching. Imagine that…you have no intellectual honesty or consistency and if it weren’t for the fact that I actually believe in the Constitution
(unlike you) I would celebrate your year of online cunnilingus for Burner being reported as the overlimit campaign contribution it surely was (albeit a totally wasted one).