Nick blogs about Steve Rubel noticing that ZDNET pays its contributors. Andy Lark had some choice words. I am about to become a ZDNet contributor, and you know what? I could care less whether they call it a blog, a slog, a flog, or a magic carpet. I will continue to make disclaimers about who pays the bills.
The notion of being schooled by someone at Edelman on the potential for astro-turfing though is the kind of sweet irony that keeps me going in life.
I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here.
I have noticed the blogosphere tends to give Edelman the benefit of the doubt – mostly I suspect because they hired Rubel. Hugh sucked it up when Richard Edelman gave him some love. Evidently Scoble too. But you really can’t work at the company that astro-turfs for Walmart and and then come at questions of conflict of interest daisyfresh, even if your argument is well measured and to the point.
RedMonk has faced its own occasional accusations about conflicts of interest and will surely continue to do so. But we make disclaimers about who pays us, just as Steve advises (and practices on his blog). That is the bottom line, but until every story Edelman places has a similar disclaimer I will continue to be skeptical (that might be a long wait). I would like to see more evidence of Steve changing Edelman’s culture for the better, with fewer mea culpas; until then, pointing at other potential conflicts of interest will only serve to draw attention to Edelmans issues, not ZDNet’s.
As Rubel points out people like Dan Farber, David Berlind and Mary Jo Foley are pretty much unimpeachable. That is probably the bottom line. Dan isn’t going to ask shills to blog on his network.
Wow there are some really lovely pictures of raised eyebrows on flickr under a creativecommons license.
Question for my readers – Should I cut down on the number of pictures on my blog, or are you enjoying the way i am trying to break up the content?