News Blog

The Federal Election Commission's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org)

A few years ago, the Federal Election Commission ruled that bloggers are eligible for the same exemptions from campaign-finance law as mainstream media outlets have enjoyed for decades.

But the FEC's membership will change over time, meaning that the beliefs of the commissioners are likely to change as well. So a future FEC could rule differently. That's what concerns Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a longtime proponent of extending campaign-finance laws to the Internet.

His answer: On Thursday, Hensarling introduced a four-page bill he's calling the Blogger Protection Act of 2008.

Hensarling intends to enshrine into U.S. law two components of what the Federal Election Commission decided in March 2006: namely, that when political bloggers and other Internet users write about candidates' positions, link to candidate Web sites, send or forward campaign-related messages, and create or host campaign-related Web sites, they generally need not report their activities to the government as "contributions" or "expenditures" on behalf of a candidate. A second section dictates that "any Internet or electronic publication (including a blog)" will be considered exempt from campaign-finance rules.

"Regulations can be changed without congressional action, and there's no telling what a future FEC might decide to do," the Texas congressman wrote in a recent letter to his House colleagues seeking co-sponsors for the measure. "Furthermore, the FEC is currently defunct because of vacancies and a lack of quorum."

Previous FEC rules have run into court trouble. In 2004, a federal judge threw out the regulators' attempts to exempt Internet political ads from campaign finance law, forcing new, narrower rules to be crafted.

The FEC, for its part, has already applied its rules to at least two specific cases involving allegations that political blogs ran afoul of campaign-finance laws. In both situations, which involved the liberal blog DailyKos and a blog that advocated the defeat of California Republican Rep. Mary Bono, the FEC ruled in a way that suggested political blogging was exempt from normal campaign-finance obligations.

Hensarling's bill doesn't appear to affect other portions of the existing FEC regulations, though. They require, among other things, that candidates, political parties, and other campaign organizations report any paid political advertising that appears on someone else's Web site and report any payments to bloggers or online commentators.

It seems TechCrunch beat Blogger & Podcaster magazine to the punch Monday by announcing the trade publication's new advertising network, which is expected to eventually include access to a group health care plan.

The cover of the current issue of Blogger & Publisher magazine.

(Credit: Blogger & Podcaster)

In response to the TechCrunch report, Blogger & Podcaster Publisher Larry Genkin confirmed his company's plans for the Blogger & Podcaster Media Network, or BPN, and added a few more details about the program he said will allow participants "to earn a living from being a full-time blogger/podcaster." The BPN is open to all bloggers and podcasters, regardless of subscriber count, unique visitors, or any other such restrictions, Denkin said. "And, we don't require exclusivity."

The BPN does, however, require listing in the USA Today Blogger & Podcaster Guide. Listings in the guide used to cost $49.95 per month, but under an expanded deal between USA Today and the BPN, the fee has been reduced to $5 per month, Denkin said. And bloggers will get even more for their money with the addition of 15 new media partners beyond USA Today. Those partners are expected to be announced later Monday, Denkin said.

The advertising portion of the program is expected to roll out this summer and will provide members with the option of including content widgets like polls, video players, and news feeds, in which ads will be embedded. Revenues from those ads will be shared with the BPN members.

The group health care plan, which will come later, could be a major advantage over other recently announced blog ad networks, because maintaining health care coverage is often a major roadblock for those who hope to take their new media careers full time.

Technology and new media made Mark Cuban a billionaire.

Why would the founder of Broadcast.com and the owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks force bloggers into a digital ghetto by limiting their access to his basketball team? Isn't he a card-carrying member of the digerati?

Mark Cuban wants bloggers out of locker room

(Credit: Golden State Warriors blog)

By banning bloggers from the Maverick's locker room, that's what he's doing, according to several journalism poobahs, including the Society of Professional Journalists.

The kerfuffle allegedly began when Tim MacMahon, who blogs for the Dallas Morning News, wrote something to the effect that the Mavs needed a new coach. On the same day the story was published, Cuban bounced MacMahon from the locker room. Days later, the team issued a new policy. No one who writes full-time for the Web is allowed in the Mav's locker room.

The Mavericks said the decision was made because there's too little space in the locker room to accommodate everyone. In an e-mail to CNET News.com, Cuban explained his view.

"The issue is that anyone can be a blogger. In about 10 seconds," Cuban wrote. "I have to make some sort of judgment on who should qualify for access. I'm not prepared to make that judgment yet. I haven't decided what the parameters will be."

He has a point. The Internet enables anyone to blog and to call themselves a blogger. If the Mavericks handed out press credentials to anyone calling themselves a blogger, press row would fill half of the American Airlines' Center, where the team plays.

But by limiting access to bloggers, Cuban is discriminating against a form of journalism that is practiced by every major publication in the country and one which is growing in influence every day. Cuban argues that he's not trying to pick on bloggers as a group.

"Bloggers can be journalists," he said. "Bloggers can have journalistic standards. However, not all do... The one thing I know for sure is that because someone is a blogger for a big company, doesn't make him or her "better" or more qualified blogger."

As a former sportswriter, I've covered Cuban for both sports and technology stories. He is one of the most accessible team owners and technology heavyweights there is. He answers e-mails at all hours and about all subjects. He doesn't duck anyone. But in this situation, it looks like MacMahon's story ticked him off and he saw a way to weed out journalists he doesn't like.

At the same time he's unfairly tarnishing blogging's image.

He has to know if he slammed the door on superstar columnists like Michael Wilbon or Mitch Albom, their employers, The Washington Post or Detroit Free Press wouldn't put up with it. Just ask Al Davis, owner of the NFL's Oakland Raiders, who tried to ban a newspaper reporter in Los Angeles years ago. The major papers and TV stations in town threatened to stop covering the team and Davis soon backed down.

Cuban, as a friend to new media and technology and someone who I think tries to be fair to reporters, should rescind his blogger policy.Bloggers aren't going away.

Come on Mark, do you really want to be compared to Al Davis?

The Gizmodo kids pulled a good stunt at CES: they fired TV-B-Gone remotes at walls of shiny new monitors on display and during press conferences, much to the displeasure of booth staffers.

No colors anymore.

(Credit: Gizmodo)

The video is funny. The ramifications of prank will not be. The CES organizers only grudgingly gave bloggers press credentials to the conference, and even then kept them segregated into a working lounge that was a step down in amenity and luxury from the "press" lounge and work area. This prank will not endear the blogging class to either the CEA, which produces CES, or the companies that paid dearly for the right to occupy CES floorspace and show off their products.

I would not be surprised to see Gizmodo banned from the show and possibly sued by either the CEA or the companies its bloggers harassed. For journalists (in my mind, all bloggers are journalists), legal and constitutional protection does not extend to mischief or sabotage. Publishing news reports, opinion, and satire are protected acts. Physical interference is not.

I asked Gizmodo publisher Nick Denton if he was going to fire the Gizmodo crew for their prank. "No," is all he said in an instant message. He did not reply to followup questions.

Gizmodo added this apology after the post first ran, but I don't think it will mollify the victims.

It was too much fun, but watching this video, we realize it probably made some people's jobs harder, and I don't agree with that (Especially Motorola). We're sorry.

There are other likely outcomes of the prank. From now on, no one with an infrared-controlled device at a tradeshow is going to leave it exposed. A few tabs of black electrical tape will thwart TV-B-Gones. Beyond that, as our security expert Robert Vamosi said about this incident, expect TV manufacturers to think seriously about building encryption into their remote controls.

The conversational nature of blogs allows editors to ask their readers to weigh in--even decide--issues that affect the publication. Over the Thanksgiving weekend, Michael Arrington at TechCrunch empowered his readers to determine whether the site should accept advertising from Izea. Arrington agreed to abide by the results of the poll. After 24 hours, voting concluded with just under 3,500 people taking part.

Traditional news outlets often establish a wall between the editorial and advertising departments to maintain editorial independence. In other words, the people who line up advertisements have no say in the content, and the editorial staff is completely removed from deciding which advertising clients to engage. Of course, such an arrangement is all but impossible for most blogs and other small publications. These small outlets often have a staff of one, and even with a half-dozen at the helm it may not make sense to dedicate an entire employee to handle advertising.

Update 3:10 p.m. PDT: Despite veto threats from the Bush administration, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would shield journalists--and some bloggers--from being forced to reveal confidential sources in federal cases.

By a 398-21 vote, the politicians backed an amended version of the Free Flow of Information Act. Sponsored by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the proposal offers a "qualified" privilege to anyone engaged in journalism, which it defines as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

But beware, "casual" bloggers: The privilege isn't meant to apply to you, the bill's sponsors say.

So how do they define "casual"? The politicians unanimously agreed to adopt an amendment (click for PDF) that specifies the person engaged in journalism must do so "regularly" and derive "a substantial portion of the person's livelihood" or "substantial financial gain" from the practice. (It would presumably be up to a court to sort out what exactly constitutes "substantial" and "regularly.")

And in case there was any doubt, the amendment specifies that terrorists or members of terrorist organizations, as designated by federal law, don't qualify for any privileges afforded by the bill either.

And even for those who qualify, the privilege is not without numerous exceptions, as CNET Blog Network contributor Josh Wolf detailed earlier Tuesday. Many of the carveouts deal with issues related to national security or serious criminal investigations, while others seek to protect unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets or other sensitive personal information.

Before the vote, members from both parties spoke in favor of the bill, which is endorsed by a number of major media organizations.

"Freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment has been a cornerstone of our democracy, one that we cherish and promote around the world," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a brief speech before the vote. "The essential work of the press has been severely hampered by a lack of federal standard."

A handful of prominent republicans, including House Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Pete King (R-N.Y.), repeatedly attacked the proposal, pointing to strong reservations voiced by the Bush administration.

The White House, Justice Department and intelligence community strongly oppose the bill because they argue it's broad enough to undermine their crime-fighting and antiterrorism efforts. The president's advisers have recommended he veto it, should it pass, Smith said.

"If the media shield bill passes, we'll be carving out a special exception to that rule for reporters, tabloids and bloggers," said Smith, who professed to having "sympathy" for the press after a two-year stint as a newspaper reporter when he was younger. "This is not what our founders intended when they created a free press. No one should be above the law, not even the press."

The idea of a reporter's privilege is hardly new, and 49 states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of reporter's privilege on their books. But King questioned why a federal rule is necessary, citing the Department of Justice's statement that it has only issued 19 subpoenas to reporters since 1991.

"Some of the people who hide behind the shield of journalism today routinely release classified national security info as if it were their duty," he said before the vote, later adding: "People should not be protected...just because they gave the information to a reporter or blogger, not someone else."

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who supports the bill, said the balance struck by the bill is appropriate. "If the exceptions were any broader," he said, "it would swallow up the rule itself."

On the Senate side, the Judiciary Committee has approved a similar--but not identical --version. All veto threats aside, for the bill to become law, the full Senate would have to approve a bill and reconcile any differences with the House.

Anyone regularly engaged in "journalism," which would seem to include some bloggers, wouldn't generally be forced to divulge confidential sources in federal cases under a bill approved Thursday by a U.S. Senate committee.

By a 15-2 vote, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee backed an amended version of the so-called Free Flow of Information Act. Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) cast the "no" votes.

Some form of "reporter's privilege," either through laws or court decisions, already exists in 49 states and the District of Columbia. This bill would extend that protection to federal cases, shielding anyone engaged in the practice of "journalism"--with a number of exceptions, naturally--from being forced to give up confidential information or provide testimony.

The term "journalism" clearly would sweep up at least some bloggers because the bill defines it thusly: "the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

That broad definition still gives some politicians heartburn. At Thursday's meeting, three members of the Senate committee--Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas)--said they worried about giving protection to bloggers who aren't generally expected to adhere to the same code of conduct and ethics as professional journalists, according to a Senate aide familiar with the debate. But they didn't propose any different language at the time, opting instead to work with the bill's primary sponsors to craft tweaks before the bill hits the Senate floor.

Although it's unclear how the final language will shake out, it could end up resembling the approach taken by a House of Representatives panel when it backed a similar bill in August. That bill's authors said they planned to add a condition restricting the reporter's privilege only to those who derive "financial gain or livelihood" from the practice of journalism. (Granted, it's relatively easy and inexpensive to slap advertisements on blogs and qualify for the privilege, so some politicians weren't impressed by that amendment.)

Enactment of either bill into law is hardly assured. Lingering opposition from the Bush administration means a new round of conflict likely looms if the measure advances to the Senate floor. The Justice Department has argued that the language is far too broad and could endanger national security and criminal investigations. A Thursday Washington Post op-ed by U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald claims the bill would unwittingly protect Iraqi spies posing as journalists and child pornographers who swapped information via the Internet. (Fitzgerald did, however, seem to indicate that some "newspapers and bloggers" would deserve the safeguards.)

One amendment to the Senate bill approved Thursday would exclude known terrorists or agents of foreign powers from the category of journalist in an attempt to address the DOJ's concerns. But beyond that, there weren't any attempts to narrow the scope of who would be protected.

And, of course, neither bill is without a lengthy list of exceptions to the privileges, which many major news organizations have deemed an appropriate balance. The Senate version would permit forced disclosure of information in cases where there's reason to believe a crime has occurred; where the information sought is "essential" to the investigation, defense or prosecution; or where unauthorized revelations of information have caused--or will cause--"significant and articulable harm to the national security." If the information is necessary in cases involving kidnapping, death, "substantial bodily harm" or terrorism against the United States, among other things, it would also be fair game.

Get ready for a contest that's being called "like the United Nations of blogging competitions."

OK, so that's the way the hosts of "Ultimate Blogger 3" are describing the latest season of the Web reality show, which is kicking off this week. (The name of the contest hints that hyperbole is encouraged all-around. So let's go with it.)

The competition's aim? "Trying to find the mastermind of the World Wide Web," as the dreamy, melodic theme song goes. Eight contestants were announced earlier this week, culled from more than 117,000 applications.

The third season of 'Ultimate Blogger' kicks off this week.

(Credit: Ultimate Blogger 3)

An apt description of the contest itself is that it's Survivor online. Each week, contestants will be given a challenge, wherein they'll have to come up with compelling online content, working under tight deadlines. Here's where the part about forming alliances and maintaining them comes into play. The person deemed to have the best blog entry gets immunity and moves on to the next round automatically. The other bloggers will vote to kick one contestant "out of the game, and off the Internet--forever." (Now, this sounds overly harsh and more permanent than it really is, of course. Luckily, contest rules don't specific whether bloggers get kicked off all the Internets.)

Contestants' content will be posted to an area known as "The Den," where the audience can follow the goings-on each week and comment on them.

The first challenge is for each contestant to create a profile. They have until 2 p.m. PDT Wednesday to post. One contestant will be awarded immunity. Votes are due by 5 p.m. that day. Thursday, the site will reveal the first blogger to be eliminated. Updated 9:15 a.m. PDT Wednesday: The new deadline for entries is 3 p.m. Thursday.

The masterminds behind the contest are Mike Merrill, Steve Schroeder and Jona Bechtolt--the creators of UrbanHonking.com of Portland, Ore. The online community began as a Web magazine but later evolved into a series of blogs. Furthering writer Katherine Dunn's theory that "everyone in Portland is living a minimum of three lives," each of UrbanHonking's co-founders has at least one other gig. (Bechtolt is a musician who tours as YACHT and Schroeder runs a local record label, for example.)

For the first time, the contest is part of Portland's annual Time-Based Art Festival. (The group received financial support from the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art, which hosts TBA.) This year's performance art festival features everything from a project called "Haircuts by Children" (which is exactly what it sounds like and, hey, they're free) to the play Gatz (wherein The Great Gatsby is read in its entirety) to a dance performance starring Mikhail Baryshnikov. Not bad company for "the greatest Web reality show of all time." (There they go again with the superlatives.)

When I saw Boing Boing co-editor Cory Doctorow speak at a publishing conference in January, he made an offhand remark about how the "directory of wonderful things," one of the most popular blogs on the Web, occasionally came under fire for not being a "true blog" because it didn't allow readers to comment on entries. Comments on Boing Boing, which started as a zine and then went online in 1995, had been turned off several years ago in the wake of trolling problems.

Well, Boing Boing critics can consider themselves moot on that point--the blog has reinstated comments along with a redesign that went into effect on Tuesday morning. Additionally, there's a new Boing Boing Gadgets vertical helmed by former Gizmodo editor Joel Johnson.

In a post on Tuesday, Boing Boing co-editor Mark Frauenfelder hinted that more new developments are coming in the near future, too. Could more verticals be on the way, eventually leading to a full-out blog network? Boing Boing has made a name for itself by chronicling all things bizarre--common topics include steampunk culture, cryptozoology, Disney (a favorite topic of Doctorow's), Creative Commons, and news of the odd--and there's plenty of room out there for even more weirdness.

"We'd like to thank the happy mutants who helped make this major relaunch possible," Frauenfelder wrote. "These folks went under the hood and untangled the mess that Boing Boing's code had snarled into, and created an elegant, powerful system that positively shines."