Those of you who saw my earlier diary this week on "paid shills" know that it's a concern of mine, and of many of the readers of this site -- especially during this 2007-08 primary season.
There is no official site rule which requires that a user who is paid by a campaign must disclose it in every relevant comment, or in her profile, etc. But she certainly should -- as a matter of ethics and as a matter of common sense. As I explained to the FEC almost two years ago, arguing on behalf of Markos, Atrios and Matt Stoller against intrusive regulation:
Ethical bloggers already engage in voluntary disclosure. Markos disclosed his consulting relationship with the Dean campaign on the front page of his website throughout his contract while Jerome ceased blogging during his consultancy, and even one of the controversial Thune-financed bloggers acknowledged he was a paid consultant in an interview with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in August 2004. Bloggers have done so and will continue to do so voluntarily because, as stated above, credibility is their most crucial currency, and a blogger later found to have concealed such relationships will soon find himself without any readers. The free market of ideas can govern; the FEC need not.
When in doubt, disclose. Clear?
Now, that said, what is becoming increasingly annoying, and detrimental to the site, are comments I've seen like this one in the past 24 hours:
[User1] and [User2] are [Candidate] campaign plants. Have you noticed that these two Johnny-come-lately are always hanging around the [Candidate] diaries at all times, and they are the only two who post positives about [Candidate] or defend [Candidate]. Bought and paid for by [Candidate].
I return to the site proviso that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that alleging bad faith on behalf of other users is such an extraordinary claim. Not only is it often unverifable (and alleged without basis), but it turns the conversation into one more about ourselves than it is about the candidates. Moreover, y'know, it is possible for one to support a relatively unpopular candidate here for authentic, noble reasons.
Let me suggest the ways in which people should respond to users whom they believe are paid shills:
- Email a site administrator, explaining the basis of your concerns.
- If you want to make the accusation publicly, you'd better have real evidence. The one time I've done it, I had firm links to the FEC reports detailing the payments at issue. If all you have are "I just can't believe someone would say that unless they were paid to do so" and you make the accusation publicly, expect to be troll-rated. We should presume each other's good faith here.
- In the meantime, just explain why the poster is wrong on the merits. It's more fun and more productive explain why someone's views are wrong, rather than arguing why someone holds the wrong views.
Is that okay with everyone?
Update by kos: The last thing us admins want is more email, and especially whiny emails from people hurt that their candidate was attacked. If you email an admin about something like this, your evidence better be rock solid. If it's not, and it's a gratuitous waste of everyone's time, it may be the complainer who finds him- or herself banned. Consider this a "no flopping" rule.