An interesting thing happened to me on Friday after I began following @amandachapel on Twitter. Yes, that "Amanda Chapel", the one who loves to rail against all things social media. In reviewing "Amanda's" last 20 posts (or "tweets") -- something I do before following anyone on Twitter -- one entry in particular piqued my interest so I clicked through to her blog, "Strumpette."

The title of the post was Top Web Marketer Defends Nikon Blog-Whore Campaign. With such a provocative title, how could I resist? The target of the post was Joe Jaffe, well-known blogger and president of interactive agency Crayon. The gist of the post centered around Joe and other A-list bloggers' journalistic integrity due to their involvement in Nikon's Blogger Lending Program.

Nikon's lending program was geared toward 50 top bloggers and the quid pro quo was that Nikon would lend one of it's high end D80's to these bloggers for six months with the idea that these bloggers would blog about the cameras and use the camera to take pictures embedded in their posts. There were no official strings attached and many have applauded Nikon and their PR agency, MWW Group for this clever social media program. However, in Joe's case, he mentioned in an interview that he had no intention of giving his "loaner" back at the end of the six month trial and as you can imagine, a shit storm ensued.

After reading the post on Strumpette -- one in which Joe and other well known bloggers like CK commented on heavily -- it got me to wondering about bloggers' ethics and whether or not they should be held to the same standards as traditional media. To be clear, I consider myself to be a blogger given the fact that I've been at it for nearly two years. However, I have nowhere near the sway that A-listers like Robert Scoble, Steve Rubel or Michael Arrington have,and as a result one could argue that my journalistic standards (along with those other non A-listers) don't matter as much. I tend to disagree with that last statement but I can't help but feel like there are those of us that feel that way.

Creative juices flowing, I couldn't resist throwing a few questions out to my friends and acquaintenances on Twitter. To add color to this post, I've included these questions and others' answers verbatim below (I've noted my responses in brackets along with those of folks on Twitter):

[me] Check out this post by @amandachapel http://tinyurl.com/2qgzjh (& heated retort by J. Jaffe.) It focuses on the integrity of bloggers/gifts. 05:19 PM January 31, 2008

[me] Following up on that last tweet - should bloggers be held to the same standard that trad. media types are? i.e. no bribes?   05:20 PM January 31, 2008

[skalik] @astrout no bribes b/c people can see through the content they inspire. as to same standards--no, but you reep what you sew 05:23 PM January 31, 2008

[me] @skalik I would tend to agree. Framing it in a softer light - what if a company that wanted you to blog their prod. took you to dinner? OK? 05:29 PM January 31, 2008

[skalik] @astrout I think that's allowed for JO-ists, depending on the pub anyway.   05:32 PM January 31, 2008

[mediaphyter] @astrout Yes! Maybe it's my time spent as a journalist, but I think that anyone wielding an information vehicle should hold themselves...   05:33 PM January 31, 2008

[mediaphyter] @astrout ...to a high standard of ethics. If your opinion or vehicle can be bought and sold, where's the value for your readership?   05:34 PM January 31, 2008

[me] @mediaphyter & @skalik thanks for your answers - 1 more follow up Q: @scobleizer posted about Nikon LENDING him a camera - right or wrong?   05:38 PM January 31, 2008

[mediaphyter] @astrout Would that be more of a product review than anything else? If they gave him the Nikon and 10 grand that might be a different story.   05:41 PM January 31, 2008

[me] @mediaphyter Based on my podcast w/Scoble & reading him daily, I think he's got integrity, but don't you think Nikon had an agenda?   05:47 PM January 31, 2008  

[bryper] @astrout: I think you're referring to the Nikon blogger lending program. @JaffeJuice was part of it as well. 05:49 PM January 31, 2008

[bryper] @astrout: Believe @SteveGarfield and @MackCollier were as well.   05:51 PM January 31, 2008

[me] @Bryper According to @amandachapel, Jaffe was given a camera to keep (prompting this discussion.) Unsure RE @stevegarfield or @mackcollier    05:55 PM January 31, 2008

[mediaphyter] @astrout Of course Nikon had an agenda. But does that negatively reflect upon Scoble? Hard to say. Most companies place products with...   05:56 PM January 31, 2008

[mediaphyter] @astrout Columnists, journalists, bloggers so they can get some publicity. But that doesn't necessarily guarantee good publicity.   05:57 PM January 31, 2008

[mediaphyter] @astrout But the thing is - the recipient should return the product after the review. I think that's the fine line that shouldn't be crossed   02:58 PM January 31, 2008

[me] @mediaphyter I like your last point a lot & I think that's what Scoble's intending to do @stevegarfield - any chance you'd like to weigh in?   05:59 PM January 31, 2008

[bryper] @astrout: Those weren't the terms of the lending program. After 6 mos., there was option to extend, buy at a discount, or return.   06:07 PM January 31, 2008

[me] @bryper sounds like Jaffe didn't follow the rules then.   06:31 PM January 31, 2008

NOTE: At this point in the conversation, both Amanda and Joe reached out to me -- Amanda via direct message (private) and Joe publicly (see below) to ask what they could do to help.

[jaffejuice] @astrout - how can I help you?   09:51 PM January 31, 2008

As a follow up to Amanda and Joe's notes, I reachd out to both of them and invited them to do a podcast interview as a follow up to the "Whore Blogger" post. Amanda's publicist talked to me about the post and Amanda's thoughts on social media in general but declined a public interview -- she's gone somewhat dark these days except for an occasional post on Twitter. Joe said that he was willing to talk with me so I'm working on scheduling a podcast with him sometime this week.

[centrs] @astrout if a blogger is influential, they aren't going to recommend a product they think is crappy. they'd lose their readers and influence 08:21 PM January 31, 2008

[centrs] @astrout losing their readers and influence = no more ad revenue or freebies.   08:22 PM January 31, 2008

[me] @centrs true but the same could be said RE trad'l media I.e. If they endorsed crappy products people wouldn't read & they have strict rules   08:41 PM January 31, 2008

[centrs] @astrout more complicated than 140 characters, but there's a difference between an individual and a media conglomerate.   07:49 PM January 31, 2008

No surprise that there are some strong feelings about this topic. In fact, one Twitter colleague, Roxanne Darling (@roxannedarling) was kind enough to write an entire post of her own on this meme. I'd highly recommend you read her balanced view of the differences between journalists and bloggers and why we really aren't comparing apples and oranges.

At the risk of rambling on forever, I'll attempt to summarize some of the conclusions I've come to based on the blog posts I've read coupled with the conversations I've had over the last 72 hours with folks on Twitter (above), on the phone (thank you Francois) and face to face with my colleague, Jim Storer.

• We live in a "pay for play" world where in most cases (now including Disney World for a mere $100/hour) if you have enough money, tickets or gifts, influence can be bought. This is not a new phenomena and will probably be a fact of life for ever. As a result, everyone has the opportunity to be tainted (by pay/agenda for traditional journalists and product placement/freebies for bloggers.)
• Unlike journalists, most bloggers don't get paid (at least not in money). As a result, their reputation is their/our reward. This doesn't prevent bloggers from writing with an agenda but their work CAN be viewed as more altruistic in some ways than professional journalists (again, this is not a hard and fast rule.)
• Like journalists, bloggers sometimes can be guilty of missing important details or not doing proper background checks [good read by former Crayon employee, Shel Holtz on this topic]. Because there are more of us and no real formal training, we bloggers are probably more inclined to make this mistake than traditional journalists.
  NOTE:many traditional journalists can lose their jobs over poorly researched/erroneously reported stories. In the blogosphere, reputations can be damaged but eventually we move on.
• If bloggers as a group (I'm including myself in this bunch) want to be taken more seriously as an official media outlet [Target doesn't think that we're worthy], we need to think long and hard about our ethics and hold ourselves to the same standards that traditional journalists would.

I've probably missed a number of other items/topics that could be included in this post. If so, feel free to add in the comments below or DM via Twitter @astrout (or on Facebook.) Thanks for listening!