If there were a Pagan blogging ecosystem I would be near the top of that food-chain. I don’t say this to brag, but to explain that because of this I’ll often receive complimentary items from folks interested in reaching my audience. This is a standard practice. People with stuff to sell send out free copies to media outlets and taste-makers hoping that their (hopefully) positive reviews will generate increased revenue. Similar principles apply to movie reviewers, radio and club DJs, and other media professionals. It is so prevalent that it is, for the most part, simply assumed that Roger Ebert didn’t pay to see “Transformers 2″, and the New York Times doesn’t have to take a trip to Borders to buy Dan Brown’s new novel. But according to the Federal Trade Commission I can no longer assume you know that I got my copy of  “Grimoires: A History of Magic Books” for free (I did), and could risk hefty fines if I don’t reveal the “compensation” they gave me.

“Today the Federal Trade Commission revised their “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials” (click here to download), urging bloggers who review products, from a book to a video game system, to disclose if they received the product for free when giving an endorsement. According to the Washington Post, breaking these new guidelines could generate up to $11,000 in fines.”

What’s causing a controversy about these new rules is the double-standard in which bloggers have to obey these new rules, but newspapers and other traditional media outlets do not. In a revealing interview with FTC official Richard Cleland, Edward Champion lays bare the undistilled ignorance and bias of the people making these new guidelines.

“In the case of books, Cleland saw no problem with a blogger receiving a book, provided there wasn’t a linked advertisement to buy the book and that the blogger did not keep the book after he had finished reviewing it. Keeping the book would, from Cleland’s standpoint, count as “compensation” and require a disclosure. But couldn’t the same thing be said of a newspaper critic? Cleland insisted that when a publisher sends a book to a blogger, there is the expectation of a good review. I informed him that this was not always the case and observed that some bloggers often receive 20 to 50 books a week. In such cases, the publisher hopes for a review, good or bad. Cleland didn’t see it that way. “If a blogger received enough books,” said Cleland, ‘he could open up a used bookstore.’”

So if a newspaper receives a book, gives it a good review, and posts a link to purchase it, it isn’t compensation. But if I get a book, post a link to Amazon, and give it a good review, I’m being “compensated” because the publisher has the “expectation of a good review”. It’s simply ridiculous. As if the publisher doesn’t have the same expectation from the newspapers and magazines it sends comp copies to. Do they really think that newspapers were simply keeping these free books in a underground library or returning them to the publisher? It’s a well-known industry “perk” that reviewers get to keep the book/movie/cd they review (and just as often those “pro” unbiased newspaper reviewers sell their comp-copies to used bookstores).

Media critic Jeff Jarvis notes that the new regulations were supposed to target hated pay-per-post “sploggers”, but instead regulates speech and is a “monument to unintended consequence”.

“…the FTC assumes – as media people do – that the internet is a medium. It’s not. It’s a place where people talk. Most people who blog, as Pew found in a survey a few years ago, don’t think they are doing anything remotely connected to journalism. I imagine that virtually no one on Facebook thinks they’re making media. They’re connecting. They’re talking. So for the FTC to go after bloggers and social media – as they explicitly do – is the same as sending a government goon into Denny’s to listen to the conversations in the corner booth and demand that you disclose that your Uncle Vinnie owns the pizzeria whose product you just endorsed. Insanity and inanity. And danger. The regulations raise no end of questions. For example: How much do I have disclose? Before I say anything nice about anyone, do I need to list every advertiser I’ve ever had? Every possible business relationship? You think my disclosures are comical now, just wait.”

So from now on, under the FTC’s assumption that I would be so tickled by Llewellyn sending me a copy of “Priestess of the Forest: A Druid Journey” that I’d have no choice but give it a positive review (when in reality I left it to gather dust because I thought it just wasn’t that good) I will be posting a disclaimer with every review stating whether I received a promotional “compensation” copy. As for the many blogging Pagan book reviewers out there who receive promotional copies, you better start crafting your disclaimer statement now. This, along with plans in congress to exempt citizen journalists and bloggers from the shield law protections is quickly creating a journalism class-system that privileges money and institutions above content and context.

Tags: blogging, books, Federal Trade Commission, journalism, law, review