Comments on: Blogging for dollars: Church-state line still valid?

q&a Two years after launching the controversial Izea, CEO Ted Murphy says the case for "sponsored conversations" is more relevant than ever.

[mattumanu]

I have to ask... Because I've looked this article up and down and I can't fathom what the Church-State line has to do with any of this... What's up with the title?

[RobertAPierce]

That was my question as well... the article itself was fine, but what the heck does it have to do with the line between the church and state??

[vidanuevatx]

I think Mr. Cooper (or whoever wrote the headline) was trying to say that there's a line between blogging and sponsorship, similar to the line between church and state. A poor headline.

[crcurrie]

It's an analogy well known to journalists but not to the general public.

[stuxstu]

I actually find it funny that anybody on CNET would have a problem with a blogger being paid for their opinion... Both CNET and bloggers sensationalize and express opinions. What is the difference?

I used to think CNET had value... but aside from Ina and Matt Asay I find CNET virtually worthless.

[ciggieoxo]

Hey, Download Dispatch for Mac is pretty handy.

[curph]

Yes the "Church-state line" tag works. If you squint your eyes in just a certain way. Otherwise the title is another in a long and fast growing list of CNet linkbait.

[Dr_Zinj]

If you receive payment, compensation, or gifts for blogging about a situation, product, person, or business, (and it doesn't matter how many layers you launder it through) it's advertising and not opinion.

If you receive payment, compensation, or gifts for blogging about comparing situations, products, persons, or businesses from a source other than that being blogged about, it's a paid consultation, a professional opinion.

If you're blogging about situations, products, persons, or businesses without payment, compensation, or gifts without renumeration, payment, compensation, or gifts, it's an opinion.