Regulatory Stupidity or Is It?
In the Boston Globe
Bloggers must reveal whether or not they have received review copies of books they review. I'll comply if and when I start receiving review copies; however, must I, in the course of my everyday conversation reveal that the book I'm recommending to a friend came to me free of charge and thus burdened with some sort of hidden freight?
Like many bloggers, the books I have received in the past (and they've been mostly in a specialty market) that I have found worthy of attention, I have reviewed. Those I have not cared for, I have politely informed the distributing party that I do not care to review the book, and I say why. The cost of the book does NOT influence my opinion of it.
I'm certain that the regulation has a good heart--there are a great many people who may receive compensation for saying things about inferior products--they may be advertising fronts for the modern equivalent of snake-oil. But there is an order of magnitude difference between recommending J. M. G. Le Clézio's new book and hawking the most recently products to enhance bust or genitalia. Amd now, to have to go about disclaiming every opinion with , "I got the book for free," strikes me both as draconian and ludicrous. Is the FCC going to troll through every literary blog in the world checking each entry for the obligatory disclaimer? And how will they know whether a disclaimer is needed, are they going to cross check every book-publisher's publicity list of every book.
A prime example of wanting to do the right thing but picking the most pig-ignorant bullish way of going about it. Rather than regulate, perhaps a suggestion and a set of examples would help. I think most of us are willing to follow proper ettiquette and protocol; I know that I chafe at being told under penalty of law how to phrase my opinions.
But, perhaps I am wrong, and merely caught in the tide of something ultimately necessary. Can the FCC make a regulation that says, "Everything but books?" I suppose one needs some perspective on it--but it does strike me as odd and heavy handed coming from where I start out.
Bloggers must reveal whether or not they have received review copies of books they review. I'll comply if and when I start receiving review copies; however, must I, in the course of my everyday conversation reveal that the book I'm recommending to a friend came to me free of charge and thus burdened with some sort of hidden freight?
Like many bloggers, the books I have received in the past (and they've been mostly in a specialty market) that I have found worthy of attention, I have reviewed. Those I have not cared for, I have politely informed the distributing party that I do not care to review the book, and I say why. The cost of the book does NOT influence my opinion of it.
I'm certain that the regulation has a good heart--there are a great many people who may receive compensation for saying things about inferior products--they may be advertising fronts for the modern equivalent of snake-oil. But there is an order of magnitude difference between recommending J. M. G. Le Clézio's new book and hawking the most recently products to enhance bust or genitalia. Amd now, to have to go about disclaiming every opinion with , "I got the book for free," strikes me both as draconian and ludicrous. Is the FCC going to troll through every literary blog in the world checking each entry for the obligatory disclaimer? And how will they know whether a disclaimer is needed, are they going to cross check every book-publisher's publicity list of every book.
A prime example of wanting to do the right thing but picking the most pig-ignorant bullish way of going about it. Rather than regulate, perhaps a suggestion and a set of examples would help. I think most of us are willing to follow proper ettiquette and protocol; I know that I chafe at being told under penalty of law how to phrase my opinions.
But, perhaps I am wrong, and merely caught in the tide of something ultimately necessary. Can the FCC make a regulation that says, "Everything but books?" I suppose one needs some perspective on it--but it does strike me as odd and heavy handed coming from where I start out.
Comments
Post a Comment