Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

It's hard to have sympathy for Walmart or Edelman. What is the difference between this kind of activity, when done right, and astroturfing? Also, it's hard to feel like Walmart is on the side of the angels with regard to health insurance. If Edelman decides to take them on as a client, this kind of relationship has (and should have) consequences, right? I like this recent essay by Malcom Gladwell on the subject of health insurance: http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html

Hi, David,

This is what I think: It is not unethical to send a press release to a blogger. It is not unethical for a blogger to write about the subject of a press release sent to them (although doing so by the means of copy and paste is tacky). However, if a reader of a blog comes to that blog with the expectation that the contents will be the original ideas and opinions of the writer -- and the blogger in question does nothing to disabuse that notion while cutting and pasting from press releases, I consider that to be unethical behavior. And for Edelman to contend that they have no responsibility because all they did was send a press release seems a bit facile to me.

This could be solved so easily: the blogger should link to the press release. This way the reader could know that the material in question came from a press release issued by the company or its representatives, not from the ideas percolated by the blogger in the shower while singing "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow."

At H2otown, the news/community site I run, I frequently find out about things via press releases on a company's website. Example: Vicam, a Watertown biotech company, was acquired by another company. I found out about it because I routinely visit sites of Watertown businesses. I noted it in a two-line entry at H2otown which linked to the press release. I am not attempting to fool readers into the notion that I did actual work or expended thought on it. Here's the post I wrote.

Now, the interesting part to me is: Did Edelman deliberately not provide something for the blogger to link to, in hopes that the blogger would do exactly what they did: pretend it was their own idea? Because if it looks like it's the blogger's own idea, it's obviously more valuable than a link to a press release. Do PR firms deliberately craft strategies to take advantage of the fact that if it's difficult to attribute, a writer/blogger/tv reporter/ won't, and the result will be better for the client? I have no idea, and I am willing to accept the answer No to this question.

Your response diminishes my trust in you.

WalMart promotes a particular political agenda.

If you speak for them, either you agree with their political agenda, or you will say anything for money.

If you will say anything for money, nobody should trust you.

If you agree with their political agenda, people who think it is evil will not trust you.

There is no neutral position here. I agree with Jon.

The issue isn't Wal-Mart's politics, for which I have little sympathy.

Lisa, posting the communications is a great idea, both for the transparency and because it makes linking possible, as you say. Linking isn't the only way to be transparent, of course. I've opted in to bunches of groups that send me information about political issues, for example, and many of them don't provide URLs for the content of their emails, so I acknowledge them the old-fashioned way ("According to..."). But having links available would be better.

That's true. The blogger could always just write, "A PR person working for WalMart sent me the following email, which I think is interesting and I substantially agree with." IMO linking to source material is still better, and if the PR firm and their client provides the material, I do think they are setting the stage for a situation that makes it easier and more likely for a blogger to make the appropriate disclosures, because they're making it possible for the blogger to do something that comes naturally to them: linking. A lot of bloggers are not journalists, and the disclosure may not come naturally to them, so they may just ready, fire, aim.

Yup. Edelman apparently encourages the bloggers who opt in to be transparent about sources, but I'm sure they could do more to encourage it. In any case, I pointed Edelman to your idea for posting the sources, and it seems to have been well-received. It's one of those ideas so smart that it's obvious, and vice versa.