I would like to propose a new rule to be added to the Daily Kos community. Of course, I have no power to decide on any rules - the only person with that power is Markos. I would like some discussion on this, however.
The Problem: Today, we have a lot of bloggers paid by other sites or organizations specifically to blog and to influence the Netroots. Some of them even tell us that they don't even post on their employer's website but "prefers to" post here (link here, and a screenshot preserved for posterity here).
Now, I think it's great that people on the left is starting to get paid for all of their hard work. It's fantastic. However, in a lot of cases, it is not obvious from reading a diary that the author is a paid employee of another blog, campaign organization, etc. A lot of the time, it is clear. Most of the time, when campaign managers/staffers post, they openly put up a disclosure. It earns them credibility as well as attention. But in a lot of the cases, this does not happen.
It does not happen especially in cases where bloggers have been contributing members of this community for a long time, and in the middle of it somewhere, they obtained paid employment. Slinkerwink with FDL, for example. That's great for them. But I think that it should have full and transparent disclosure.
The Solution: My proposed solution is a simple one. It is to institute a rule that if a blogger or diarist posting on this site has an ongoing monetary relationship with another blog or political or campaign organization, that affiliation must be disclosed before the substance of the diary begins, and something must be included to indicate the monetary relationship between said blogger and said organization. For the purposes of this rule, it should only be applied to the following types of employees (or people who have monetary relationship):
- One is the proprietor of such blog and derives regular income from said blog.
- One is a person of authority in such a blog or political or campaign organization: the proprietor or candidate, other heads of the organization, member of a steering committee or Board of that organization, editors and "front pagers" of a publication.
- One is paid to advocate for a campaign or organization, or a blog, or any specific position or issue of such campaign, organization, or blog.
In other words, someone who is a receptionist at some political organization, or otherwise employed in a fashion that has nothing to do with organizational or editorial responsibility or issues or positions would not be subject to this rule.
This rule also doesn't apply if you are not paid to either manage or do political advocacy. If you work for Aetna, you should be able to express yourself here without fearing retribution from your employer. But for those who organize, run, are editors of, and are paid by blogs, political campaigns or organizations for advocacy work should have no problem giving full and open disclosure.
This should apply to whomever is paid by another blog, campaign or political organization in any way, shape or form on a regular basis. This would include regular employment, being a contractor or a consultant, and any other form of regular or periodic payment. This would apply only Whether it's Jim Dean of DFA is posting, or Chris Bowers of OpenLeft, or Slinkerwink of FDL, or whomever.
I will stress that this only applies to you if you have a monetary relationship with such organization/blog/campaign. It does not apply to you if you run a personal blog but don't use it as your cash cow.
The Reason: Transparency. Some might ask, isn't putting something in the signature line enough? No, it's not. I think that it should be clear from the get-go that a diarist has a monetary interest in an organization's or a campaign's or a blog's success. We progressives believe in a transparent, open process in government. Why shouldn't we when it comes to blogging? Call it the Jane Hamsher Rule if you like. She goes on TV and demands to know who pays the other Democrats/Progressives (curiously enough, she only demands that of those who disagree with her, though). She and her employees certainly should not have any problems if we asked them to disclose their own affiliations atop their diaries on Daily Kos. Don't you agree that everyone deserves to know who's paying some of our diarists?
Enforcement: The consequence of braking this rule should involve, first, a visible warning. If the diarist clearly fails to comply, then, and only then, will TU's be empowered to start hide rating the diarist's comments to trigger an autoban. Members with administrative powers may also ban such members. If this continues to be a patter with a certain blog/organization/campaign, triggering autoban for anyone financially associated with that organization should be within TU powers, or the organization may be banned by admins.