We've danced around the topic all week, examining the issue of bias, then disclosure, and even whether bloggers should be held to a higher level of ethical behavior than other journalists or online writers. I hope you've had a chance to read those position statements before you get to this one!

The core question is whether bloggers should accept payment for their blogging efforts. 

Whether it's as subtle as a free bottle of wine from a vineyard or as overt as an advertisement (ranging from the abstract advertising relationship between bloggers and Google's AdSense program to the explicit "sponsor this blog" links) or as crass as Pay Per Post or Review Me, should bloggers get paid, or not?

Let's start with the most overt situation: when Ted Murphy launched Pay Per Post, the response of the blogosphere was universally critical. A few examples: TechCrunch calls PayPerPost "officially absurd" and the Word of Mouth Marketing Association reports that Jeff Jarvis claims "The problem is the advertisers are trying to buy a blogger's voice, and once they've bought it they own it." while ranconteur Jason Calacanis says "PayPerPost versus authentic blogging is like comparing prostitution with making love to someone you care for deeply. No one with any level of ethics would get involved with these clowns." At least Robert Scoble waffles on the subject, writing "Why I won't use PayPerPost (and if I do, I will disclose)".

Jeff and Jason clearly don't get how the world of capitalism works, nor, apparently does WOMMA. As I have already discussed, every blogger is biased, and every blogger has relationships, the proverbial "six degrees of separation", that they should disclose but aren't. Robert understands, and he accepts gifts from vendors with frequency, as well as his well-publicized (and well-disclosed) relationship with Seagate Corporation. But the comments Jeff and Jason make leave me wondering how they think the world works, how they think that people earn money and pay the mortgage...

To make my position crystal clear, I believe that everyone is biased already, that we have relationships with vendors and products based not only on our own experiences but those of our friends, colleagues and family (an undercurrent to the terrific books The Tipping Point and The Wisdom of Crowds). Further, people can accept advertising, sponsorships, and even explicit pay for a blog entry without compromising their ideals or ethics. It's not a black and white situation, and if it were, it'd be incredibly hard to be totally pure and clean.

Something to ponder: Jeff Jarvis is a professor at The City University of New York, but when he writes or lectures, does he disclose which companies pay the university to help offset running costs or sponsor research?  Which firms have long-term endowments and does their relationship de facto bias the university and its instructors to be more favorably inclined towards that company or industry? More importantly, should it be disclosed?  Does it "buy" the bias of the institution and does the company then "own" the instructors and their publications? 

Of course not.

I think that if you disclose your relationship with your sponsor or advertiser, if you admit that a particular blog entry is an "advertorial" not a straight editorial (whatever that would mean), you're free, clear and, yes, still behaving ethically. I did exactly that when I wrote about Nick James and, yes, was paid $125 via Paypal a few weeks later. Was I wrong?  Did I sully my ethical position as a business blogger and shoot myself in the foot for a tiny bit of lucre?

---