Blogads – Moon of Alabama

Back to Main

May 1, 2006

Blogads

Just saw this advertisement running on Juan Cole’s website.

Somehow, this does not fit.

bigger screenshot
full screenshot

The book’s author is Matthew Levitt.

This book was written while Matthew Levitt was a senior fellow and
director of terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy.

Cole on the Washington Institute:

WINEP has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions, even though its director, Dennis Ross, is more moderate. He is a figurehead, however, serving to disguise the far right character of most of the position papers produced by long-term WINEP staff and by extremist visitors and "associates" (Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are among the latter).

The "blurp" for the book is by ex-CIA director James "Worldwar IV" Woolsey. Cole once wrote:

[T]he drumbeat of the intellectually dishonest members of the war party, such as former CIA director James Woolsey, intimating that perhaps maybe somewhere there is not impossibly a possibility that it is not unthinkable that there is an Iraq-al-Qaida connection appears to be being bought by the naive.

Does the blogsphere have a credibility problem, when advertisment by "one side" start to appear on blogs by the "other side"?

Posted by b on May 1, 2006 at 15:09 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Caveat emptor –
One doesn’t assume, I think, that the product being advertised is endorsed by the blog/magazine that it appears in – that’s the purpose of the editorial/advertising dichotomy, after all.
If you’re going to accept advertising, then there are tradeoffs.

Posted by: abamalama | May 1 2006 18:11 utc | 1

If you’re going to accept advertising, then there are tradeoffs.
I don´t think it is that easy. Blogs are usually written by one person with one distinguished opinion. They are not magazines.
It is also possible to screen advertising and only accept those that fit the purpose of the blog.
Even huge networks make such distinctions. Why not blogs?

Posted by: b | May 1 2006 20:02 utc | 2

There may be tradeoffs, but then we shouldn’t be outraged when corporate networks and big media refuse ads from Moveon.com, United Church of Christ, etc. And if bloggers are to be held accountable for the positions of their advertisers, where should the line be drawn–can a blogger accept a campaign ad for a progressive candidate he’s not 100% in agreement with on everything? In any case, I doubt any significant number of readers of blogs like Juan Cole’s are confused about the distinction between content and advertising, so this seems a bit of a “gotcha” exercise–the Levitt book is a book, not a corrupt multinational corporation. When Cole starts taking Exxon/Mobil’s money, I’ll get nervous about his credibility.

Posted by: DC | May 1 2006 20:42 utc | 3

@DC – the question for bloggers, in my view, is “Do you want to transport a message?”
If you want to do so, such ads are contraproductive.

Posted by: b | May 1 2006 20:47 utc | 4

Happens all the time.
Since the parser is generating ads based on post content, a la Google, you are bound to see subject based advertisements with which the post will not agree.
For instance, just last week I put up a post at Kos on why we need to support net neutrality and a commenter noticed that the ad next to the piece promoted an astroturf website that wants to kill net neutrality.
The poster then asked whether they had gotten to Kos.(!)
It’s obviously should not be a reflection on the blog host if the BlogAds parser doesn’t have an ideology filter. And considering how many people complained when ads for United 93 were not sold on liberal blogs, there probably shouldn’t be such criteria.
So what to do? My suggestion is to give blog hosts the ability to block ads from sponsors they do not support. That way, bloggers can avoid having their credibility questioned and advertisers will not waste page views on unsympathetic audiences.
There is also the “market solution” to this problem of ad stalking. As one commenter at my Kos thread suggeted:
Do you know if that’s the type where they pay per click? If so, I’ll be on that thing all day long.

Posted by: Night Owl | May 1 2006 22:01 utc | 5

naturally the bad guys want to infiltrate the blogs.
hamas?how did it happen , really, charity, politics, terror,far and away the best ,careful (o so gently) fascinating (these thrills aren’t cheap) professional, (unlike wingnittia anti semetic leftist propaganda, you know who we mean) far and away far and awayfar and away the best. and that photograph, so catching, orange color of rage and passion.
how much money does it take for cole to run that blog? i harbor no ill will if he seeks to make a profit. billmon opened up his blog for donations one day , it came and went before i logged on. kos must make a little bundle from memberships.
so anyone can advertise on blogads? a good business might be one that handled progressive advertising. we have a choice. we have a choice to sell out to lobbiests or GOP or aipac or anyone. so you need the money? my ethics , your ethics, i don’t want to debate. but one thing is clear. there is ALWAYS a choice. to carry advertisements that offer info counter to what you believe to be true implies some kind of weird balancing pretending that money doesn’t talk. how much can you be bought for? rationalize it however you want, its hypocritical.
if there was someway i could send you money b, for keeping up the site i would do it in a heartbeat. thank you

Posted by: annie | May 2 2006 0:33 utc | 6

No, great stuff. Let the market decide. If some right wing writer has his book advertised on Informed Comment whether knowingly or through software generated placemat, it’s good for Cole. The reader can make his own decisions if anyone actually buys the book.
As Fire Dog Lake has been pointing out, the liberal blogs are market supported while the heavy mouth breathing right wingies subsist on shadowy socialism, support by The Man with an agenda.

Posted by: christofay | May 2 2006 8:21 utc | 7

Like RNC ads on Salon.com, Salon [and its readers] laughed all the way to the bank. Ads that target the wrong audience don’t generate revenue, they just lose money for the advertiser.
So, laugh along with Cole.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 2 2006 13:44 utc | 8

There may be tradeoffs, but then we shouldn’t be outraged when corporate networks and big media refuse ads from Moveon.com, United Church of Christ, etc.
I disagree. The airwaves over which the networks broadcast are, in theory, public. The corporations don’t legally own them, they lease them. Therefore, they do not have the right to block messages with which they disagree, with some allowance for presentation. In practice, however, they act as if they do own the airwaves and have a right to control the message. Corporate influence (ownership?) of government has cemented this perception so that contrary ideas appear radical.
The net is a completely different medium. Anyone can start a blog and broadcast his or her message. This is not true for radio and TV. A blog site is personal space while the airwaves are supposed to be public property, so a blogger’s refusal to advertise particular content is qualitatively different than a network’s refusal. On the net, the rejected party can go elsewhere within that medium; not so on the broadcast airwaves.

Posted by: lonesomeG | May 2 2006 16:00 utc | 9

Back to Main