Ethics of posting to message boards:

Should paid political operatives be required to identify themselves when posting to public message boards as part of their paid activities?

Note: this is not a discussion of DU rules.

Some clown who is paid to lurk or post manipulative bullshit from either side would totally undermine their "subliminal" messages by declaring who they are.

Many of these idiots are as subtle a brick through the picture window; toying with them is half the fun. :evilgrin:

yet their agenda reveals itself almost immediately. They do provide a lot of entertainment.

Unfortunately, there are handful of amoral types who will, without twinge of conscious, play on the generally benevolent view and good will to others of most DU'ers...and we get scammed (hey, I contributed to Scheeler's campaign, got played for total fool).

Thankfully, they are few and far between and they still have to live with themselves long after they've left DU, while we keep our integrity.

MKJ

So individual boards would be free to make their own rules.

There is no "legal" or "illegal" involved here. If a person decides not to declare him or herself, are you suggesting that people start "outing" them?

This place can get nasty enough without that crap...

is because they are ashamed of whatever or whomever they are supporting. I can think of no other reason why they would not want other posters to know who they were.

For example, on another political message board (not DU), a major entertainment figure was featured. Word got out he was paid for his endorsement of a particular cause. There was a discussion about it, with some saying they would be disappointed if this were the case (which it turned out it wasn't), and that knowing that the person was paid would have made them question the legitimacy of the particular cause.

Opinions you are paid to offer should not be given the same weight as beliefs that are freely shared.

say or how they say it? Would it force them to be more clandestine?

Would it change the meaning of the content? Would it change our perception of the content, and our sense of credibility about the content and its source?

My feeling is that whether the poster is paid or not, that I can make my own decision on the merits of their post. Would it make a difference to me if part of the context of the post was as a "paid political ad"? Yes - I probably would not take it nearly as seriously or perhaps skip reading it altogether - kind of like I don't consume broadcast/cable mass media.

As I write this I think about the larger broadcast/cable mass media world. All the blow dried talking hair are really paid political operatives in one format or another. Do we take them seriously? Based on the post's on this board I would say yes. We take media very seriously. But we use our own experience to validate or invalidate what they are saying. And we do this within the context of knowing that they are all "political operatives" who are paid to engage in their activities.

But what about regulation? Should we regulate media lies and spin? How about outright propaganda? How about misinformation, poor intelligence and poor reporting? How do you regulate information without imposing on free speech? Regulation in media is full of loopholes. If you own a media service, you can lie and spin and present distortions as much as you want if you can find a market willing to pay for it.

Wrap up: Free speech is the basic issue. It must be preserved. It is a function of the media service editorial staff to filter and edit content.

It is considered an essential part of journalistic ethics to fully disclose any financial entalbglements relevant to a story you are rerporting on. As the blogosphere takes on more of the nature of a journalism of the people perhaps it is time to adopt the best practices of our print and broadcast media ancestors? Or perhaps instead we should just re-invent the wheel.

You know, if this poll had simply been posted on its own, I think we probably would have permitted it. But given the context of your previous threads (now locked), I can't say we're inclined to cut much slack right now.

From an ethical standpoint: Should paid political operatives disclose themselves? Sure they should.

From a practical standpoint: Is there *any* way for DU to possibly enforce this? Obviously there isn't.

This type of thing just makes people suspicious. Give it a rest.

Skinner
DU Admin