cheepcheepcheepcheep

I've run across this article in a couple of different places, and it's depressing -- this type of practice strikes me as being dishonest, especially when the reader's only clue that the writer is getting paid for a favorable mention of a product is a vaguely worded box off to the side. I don't scrutinize people's sidebars, although I'll probably be paying more attention to them now. I wouldn't bookmark (and read every day) a blogger's work who was participating in this.

From the article: "[...T]he vast majority of bloggers don't consider themselves journalists, so they don't need to follow that profession's practice of keeping clear lines between content and the advertising that supports it."

I would imagine that the bloggers don't consider themselves prostitutes, either, but that seems to be the best analogy here. And really, I don't even have a philosophical problem with prostitution, as long as all the parties involved are consenting adults. Have at it, consenting adults. What I do have a problem with is advertisers having access to people with the aura of unbiased-ness. And people profiting from the appearance of unbiased-ness -- at our expense.

It would be interesting to do a study about whether the offer to be paid for a favorable review of a product affects one's opinion of it - I can't imagine that it wouldn't.