Discussion of the eG Ethics code

[Jon Tseng]

I don't really follow that argument,

←

"Q. Does a food blog even need a code of ethics? A. Depends on how you define a blog."

To put it in simpler terms there are two debates here. First what is the nature of a food blog (reportage? infotainment? documentary? journalism). Second what is the appropriate code of conduct for that definition of a food blog, if any.

I think the first argument has been done to death and, for a certain conception of food blog, the current code is appropriate.

I think the second argument has been skirted round but not really touched upon. This is back to front as clearly your view of what a blog is is the key determinant for what code of ethics you think is appropriate.

-------------------

The other new point I wanted to bring to the table was that, under a certain conception of a blog as a personal viewpoint (think of it as a diary), a comp is an integral part of that experience.

It could be that disclaimers are inadvisable in this genre of writing as they break up the flow and turn it more into legalese. A parallel example is that you wouldn't put elaborate discloses into your personal diary; it just isn't suitable for that genre.

Of course there is the argument you are then misleading your readers. Which is why under this scenario I would argue for more general education/disclosure ("Understand this is a blog; its my personal viewpoint. Sometimes I get freebies. Cool") rather than "Xxx meal was comped, Yyyy I paid for myself but a got a free glass of fermented camel juice comp by the fermented camel juice sommelier" etc.

-------------------

On non-restaurant related comps, one observation I would make is that full disclosure in mainstream journalism (at least in the UK) is far less common than you might think. Wine writers in particular clearly receive a lot of tasting samples from producers, but I have never seen this fact mentioned in national newspaper wine columns. Perhaps this says more about the standard of UK journalism than about disclosure requirements.

J

Edited May 16, 2009 by Jon Tseng (log)

[Fat Guy]

This is back to front as clearly your view of what a blog is is the key determinant for what code of ethics you think is appropriate.

I think you're continuing to reduce the whole code to the disclosure requirement for restaurant review comps. That's a single provision of the code. Do you think the nature of a given blog matters vis-a-vis the prohibition against plagiarism? Doubtful. So you're really just talking about a few code provisions at most. But the code assumes those few provisions do indeed apply to anybody offering judgments about restaurants, products, trips, events, etc. A blog that offers no expressly or implicitly evaluative statements of any kind might be an interesting case, but such a blog might not be very interesting to read. In addition, the code presupposes that any non-fiction blog is a form of journalism, even if the author doesn't think of it that way. Online writing is published instantly and globally. Online writers can be held accountable for copyright violations, defamation, etc., and it's no defense to say "but my view of what a blog is means I don't have to follow these rules."

It could be that disclaimers are inadvisable in this genre of writing as they break up the flow and turn it more into legalese. A parallel example is that you wouldn't put elaborate discloses into your personal diary; it just isn't suitable for that genre.

If you write a personal diary and stick it under the bed, disclosure isn't necessary. If you publish it to the world, that's a different story. And unless someone is writing haiku it's not difficult to include disclosures in a way that doesn't break up the flow.

I would argue for more general education/disclosure ("Understand this is a blog; its my personal viewpoint. Sometimes I get freebies. Cool") rather than "Xxx meal was comped, Yyyy I paid for myself but a got a free glass of fermented camel juice comp by the fermented camel juice sommelier" etc.

As mentioned before, when we put together the code we felt the burden of disclosure should fall on the author. The burden is not placed on the reader to find some other post or page that contains disclosures. If you write about a free product or service, under the code you need to make a disclosure when and where you write about it.

On non-restaurant related comps, one observation I would make is that full disclosure in mainstream journalism (at least in the UK) is far less common than you might think.

←

All of us who worked on the code are fully aware that in mainstream media comps are both common and commonly not disclosed. Ditto for online. We're trying to do better.

[prasantrin]

So how many people have signed on so far?

[Fat Guy]

We're close to 50 legitimate-seeming ones (plus a bunch of attempts to sell us Viagra) and will post a signatories roster some time soon, once we go through the submissions more carefully.

[Dave Hatfield]

Well, I wasn't going to comment any further, but this morning I had such a perfect example of the difference between a comp and a freebie that I can't resist passing it on.

This happened at Limogne market where I had gone to stock up on vegetables, fruit and cheese. Its a lively market and was packed due to it being a beautiful Spring day.

First the comp.

I stopped to chat with a local wine maker who I know well. Now, although I like hi, and his wife I don't think much of his wine so never buy any. He likes me and knows my opinion, but he also knows that my views on local wines are well respected locally.

So, he gave me a bottle of his latest release. A comp if I ever saw one. His hope is that I'll like it and tell others and, maybe even mention it on my blog. Won't do him any good, but I can't blame him for trying.

Now the freebie.

I'm making a couple of tarte tatin' as we have ten for lunch tomorrow. Thus I stopped at a stand specializing in apples, told the lady that I wanted the best type for making tart tatin and that I needed enough for two. She did me a bag of nice looking apples.

I noticed that she had some nice looking, but expensive cherries. So I asked for a few. She put a couple of handfuls in a bag & I said that's enough. She weighed them, added thing up and then reopened the bag and put in another handful. That, my friends, is a freebie.

Hopefully the ethical or moral difference between the two actions is clear.

[docsconz]

Well, I wasn't going to comment any further, but this morning I had such a perfect example of the difference between a comp and a freebie that I can't resist passing it on.

This happened at Limogne market where I had gone to stock up on vegetables, fruit and cheese. Its a lively market and was packed due to it being a beautiful Spring day.

First the comp.

I stopped to chat with a local wine maker who I know well. Now, although I like hi, and his wife I don't think much of his wine so never buy any. He likes me and knows my opinion, but he also knows that my views on local wines are well respected locally.

So, he gave me a bottle of his latest release. A comp if I ever saw one. His hope is that I'll like it and tell others and, maybe even mention it on my blog. Won't do him any good, but I can't blame him for trying.

Now the freebie.

I'm making a couple of tarte tatin' as we have ten for lunch tomorrow. Thus I stopped at a stand specializing in apples, told the lady that I wanted the best type for making tart tatin and that I needed enough for two. She did me a bag of nice looking apples.

I noticed that she had some nice looking, but expensive cherries. So I asked for a few. She put a couple of handfuls in a bag & I said that's enough. She weighed them, added thing up and then reopened the bag and put in another handful. That, my friends, is a freebie.

Hopefully the ethical or moral difference between the two actions is clear.

←

I get the distinction between the stories but don't agree with the ethical difference. The winemaker was offering you a sample. If you like it, why not write about it? if you don't you can either still write that you don't like it or ignore it. The ethical problem would be if you solicited the wine with a promise to write about it. The quid pro quo element is an essential one when it comes to this issue. Frankly, I don't care if someone is comped or not so long as the writer provides an honest assessment.

[docsconz]

I'll add that I personally don't care if a comp is disclosed so long as the assessment is honest and accurate. Now I don't know for a fact whether or not David Rosengarten was comped on items he used to evaluate for his newsletter, though I suspect that he was. Though his writing couldn't have sounded more like a shill, the products he recommended that I tried were always excellent and generally as great as he claimed. That is all that I felt mattered.

[Fat Guy]

I'll add that I personally don't care if a comp is disclosed so long as the assessment is honest and accurate.

←

I also don't personally care if a comp is disclosed so long as the assessment is honest and accurate. A lot of people, however, do care. They feel betrayed if they've read someone's assessment of a product or service, and it then comes to light that there was a comp involved. They see it as dishonest. So the code reflects that. In addition, the disclosure requirement may, it is hoped, help keep authors extra honest.

[Fat Guy]

His hope is that I'll like it and tell others and, maybe even mention it on my blog.

←

It's not possible to read people's minds, though. You may be right in this instance about this guy's motives, or the lack of ulterior motive on the fruit lady's part, but we can always be wrong about other people's motives. And in the internet era, where everyone's a potential source of PR via blogs, discussion forums and other web outlets, many if not most restaurateurs and vendors of all kinds are keenly aware that any given kindness or unkindness may be reported globally that evening. In addition, from an ethics perspective, it's not clear that the other person's motives matter at all. Rather, what matters is the writer's ethics. So once something is accepted for free, regardless of anyone's motives (which aren't really determinable anyway), the code requires a corresponding disclosure.

[docsconz]

I'll add that I personally don't care if a comp is disclosed so long as the assessment is honest and accurate.

←

I also don't personally care if a comp is disclosed so long as the assessment is honest and accurate. A lot of people, however, do care. They feel betrayed if they've read someone's assessment of a product or service, and it then comes to light that there was a comp involved. They see it as dishonest. So the code reflects that. In addition, the disclosure requirement may, it is hoped, help keep authors extra honest.

←

I wasn't debating the code, but Dave's ethical dichotomy. I simply added my own opinion with an example.

It is reasonably clear how to sign on to the code, but should one sign on and the code change, how does one sign off if that person is no longer in agreement with it?

[Jon Savage]

It is reasonably clear how to sign on to the code, but should one sign on and the code change, how does one sign off if that person is no longer in agreement with it?

←

From here: The Ethics Code Thingie

Should the code at any time develop in such a way that I no longer feel able to comply with the code, I will remove the badge and/or stop referencing the code, and I will email ethics@egstaff.org with a request to be removed from the roster.

[docsconz]

It is reasonably clear how to sign on to the code, but should one sign on and the code change, how does one sign off if that person is no longer in agreement with it?

←

From here: The Ethics Code Thingie

Should the code at any time develop in such a way that I no longer feel able to comply with the code, I will remove the badge and/or stop referencing the code, and I will email ethics@egstaff.org with a request to be removed from the roster.

←

Thanks. Missed that.

[Fat Guy]

We'll be posting the initial list of signatories after the holiday weekend. This is your last chance to get in on the first round and earn the right to say you were doing it before it was cool.

The signatories form is here.

[philadining]

Interesting side-note to the discussion about comps in The Code - the specifics seem vague, but apparently the FTC has declared that bloggers MUST "clearly" disclose comps or payments from companies that are being reviewed.

NY Times blurb>>

[MaxH]

...apparently the FTC has declared that bloggers MUST "clearly" disclose comps or payments from companies that are being reviewed. NY Times blurb

Maybe it needs a separate thread, but this is a radical development, in view of gross cases I've witnessed online, or read about. If it has effect, I expect fewer one-post participants who post (or register) on food discussion sites to comment on just one product or firm. It might even drive Yelp out of business, if we can judge from the persistent ethics publicity, including in WSJ in 2007 and Los Angeles Times, 2009.

Yesterday's AP article in the link says "the FTC's proposal made many bloggers anxious." Yet little anxiety was evident in the WSJ story, among bloggers who recommended businesses that gave them freebies (and who didn't even acknowledge this when writing). Yelp's CEO even defended a restaurant-sponsored Yelp party, claiming such events "don't guarantee positive reviews" (though the one in question produced "a torrent" of them).

Edited October 6, 2009 by MaxH (log)