j: That’s an interesting tidbit about USWeb and The Globe. I found it rather insulting that they’d compare a blogger (If you can really call him that) in the article getting $5 for one link to a product he didn’t use or disclose getting money for (until after the article when he updated the entry but did not indicate it was an update) is somehow the same as Tiger Wood’s mad cash Nike endorsement deals. I look forward to the day when Nike pays Tiger Wood’s $5 to wear a cap, etc.

As a former reporter and editor myself I tend to get defensive about criticism of newspaper stories. I think the entire story was fairly weak in this case, although we can’t tell how much more material the reporter might have included that was cut (one of the things that first attracted me to the web was the idea of putting out writing without it having to fit into a certain space on a page. And from doing editing and page makeup I know how fast and arbitrary the decisions can get.

The main problem I have with stories like this is it makes it sound like the web has created new ethical issues. I think the reality is that it creates different ethical issues.

It is rare indeed to find the newspaper whose content is never influenced by advertisers. Most editors try their best to keep the ad department out of their business. But most newspapers and magazines also feature “advertorial” content that is controller by the advertisers. Insiders know what parts of the paper are advertising produced, but I’m sure many readers don’t.

This topic is one that really needs a little more depth than a short story.