DallasFood.org Forums: Food Writers and the Federal Trade Commission - DallasFood.org Forums

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Food Writers and the Federal Trade Commission

#21 User is offline   Kirk 

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 27 October 2009 - 02:16 PM

carter said:

What is your basis for the publication, blog or forum's credibility? Do you rely on disclaimers or use your own skepticism/judgment?


Both. And I think that requiring a disclaimer is a good thing. Too bad they don't require one of trolls.

#22 User is offline   luniz 

  • Posts: 335
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 27 October 2009 - 03:33 PM

tbh I didn't even know that Roger Ebert went to fancy movies reviews. Not that I care or anything. But I never made that assumption.

#23 User is offline   luniz 

  • Posts: 335
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 27 October 2009 - 03:34 PM

oops meant to say fancy movie premiers.

#24 User is offline   carter 

  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 27 October 2009 - 05:21 PM

Quote

...I think that requiring a disclaimer is a good thing. Too bad they don't require one of trolls.
Fine. But the point I was trying to make is that, to me at least, it seems that those that are knowledgeable and interested in food are willing to do enough work on their own to discern whether the commentary/review is reliable.

I would add, that in a vacuum, I don't think enhanced disclosure is inherently a bad thing. But I disagree with the disclosure rules when I weigh the fact that if fully enforced, the new regime will impose additional transaction costs on those posting online reviews/commentary and lead to less content. And that is just one unintended consequence. I can think of a dozen more and there are probably a hundred more that I can't think of.

To me, the beauty of the internet is that it has brought down barriers and reduced costs associated with publishing and disseminating information. Is all that new information accurate? Unbiased? Balanced? Of course not but leave me to my own devices to separate the gold from the gravel.

#25 User is offline   Scott 

  • Posts: 200
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 28 October 2009 - 09:28 AM

carter said:

...it seems that those that are knowledgeable and interested in food are willing to do enough work on their own to discern whether the commentary/review is reliable.

What about people that aren't knowledgeable and interested in food (aka "the vast majority of Americans")? Or what about people who may be knowledgeable and interested in food, but know nothing about the trustworthiness of writers in a city to which they're traveling? Seriously, one of the biggest ass-whippings for me is trying to find out where to eat when I travel. Gauging the credibility of the professional critics, bloggers, and message board participants would be enough of a challenge without having to worry about whether they're corrupt. Clear and conspicuous disclosure of material connections would streamline the process.

carter said:

But I disagree with the disclosure rules when I weigh the fact that if fully enforced, the new regime will impose additional transaction costs on those posting online reviews/commentary and lead to less content.

You'll have to flesh that out for me. What are the "additional transaction costs"? From the writer's perspective, including a disclosure in a blog post or message board comment doesn't cost a dime (except perhaps in credibility, which is the point). From the advertisers' perspective, there may be some additional cost in monitoring what's written by the online endorsers they recruited. Perhaps some advertisers would prefer not to bother with that--especially since, with the endorsers making required disclosures, the advertising campaign will be less likely to be mistaken for genuine grass roots enthusiasm for the product. If that's the kind of content we have less of, how is that a bad thing for consumers?

carter said:

To me, the beauty of the internet is that it has brought down barriers and reduced costs associated with publishing and disseminating information. Is all that new information accurate? Unbiased? Balanced? Of course not but leave me to my own devices to separate the gold from the gravel.

Why? Why should advertisers be able to do things on the Internet that they can't legally do on television or in a newspaper?

Scott

#26 User is offline   DonnieC 

  • Posts: 455
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 28 October 2009 - 10:52 AM

Kirk said:

Too bad they don't require one of trolls.


He said trolls...
Posted Image
Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!

#27 User is offline   BK 

  • Posts: 353
  • Joined: 26-October 10
  • LocationDallas

Posted 28 October 2009 - 11:47 AM

luniz said:

oops meant to say fancy movie premiers.

As a person with family in the biz, let me enlighten you: NO newspaper movie reviewer (amongst others, too) EVER pays to see the new movies. There are screenings starting at least 2 weeks out from public release date for all new movies.

Go see Michale Jackson's new movie... it was awesome.
Yes, it was free.

#28 User is offline   Kirk 

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 28 October 2009 - 02:10 PM

DonnieC said:

He said trolls...
Posted Image


You hit the troll nail on the head!

Posted Image

#29 User is offline   nickloubuc 

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 28 October 2009 - 07:57 PM

Kirk, that pic was seriously funny. I'm just curious who else is on the troll list. National and local.
Nancy Nichols

#30 User is offline   Kirk 

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 29 October 2009 - 12:09 AM

nickloubuc said:

I'm just curious who else is on the troll list. National and local.


Posted Image
Posted Image

#31 User is offline   Kirk 

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 29 October 2009 - 12:13 AM

Local edition...

Posted Image Posted Image

#32 User is offline   Scott 

  • Posts: 200
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 29 October 2009 - 08:56 AM

Posted Image Posted Image

#33 User is offline   Kirk 

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 29 October 2009 - 09:07 AM

Posted Image http://www.dcustom.c...ncyNichols.ashx

#34 User is offline   Scott 

  • Posts: 200
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 29 October 2009 - 09:31 AM

Posted ImagePosted Image

#35 User is offline   nickloubuc 

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 29 October 2009 - 12:47 PM

Scott, you don't have my permission to publish that photo of Nick. I'm calling the FTC, FDA, and the NAACP. I don't know how to upload photos here. I am too busy shilling. I had a faaaaarm in Aaaafrica...
Nancy Nichols

#36 User is offline   nickloubuc 

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 30 October 2009 - 12:20 PM

Oh, and Kirk. That is a nice picture of Mary Malouf!
Nancy Nichols

#37 User is offline   Kirk 

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 30 October 2009 - 12:53 PM

nickloubuc said:

Oh, and Kirk. That is a nice picture of Mary Malouf!


Wait ... you mean this is also Mary Malouf?

#38 User is offline   Scott 

  • Posts: 200
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 30 October 2009 - 01:59 PM

Posted ImagePosted Image

#39 User is offline   Scott 

  • Posts: 200
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 30 October 2009 - 02:01 PM

Posted ImagePosted Image

#40 User is offline   Kirk 

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 30 October 2009 - 02:13 PM

Posted Image http://www.dmagazine...Central214.ashx

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic