04-26-2014, 12:16 PM
The blog is clearly a small business, as it takes paid advertising (and I would assume it is reported as such). That is a good question on what "donations" are reported as after they cover the expense of running the site.
Speaking of blurring the lines, I was struck by Tiffany's statement today:
Reading this inspired me to go back and find a few other postings I remembered.
March 22
Tiffany announces her candidacy and states that new contributing editor Alan McNarie and other "community contributors" will be covering the campaign on BIC, rather than herself.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...istrict-5/
April 1
Cheryl King highlights Tiffany's candidacy in a submission on candidate filings.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ng-report/
April 6th
Tiffany posts an announcement of a meeting covering eruption concerns, but at the same time announces the public meeting will be an opportunity to meet herself, the candidate. Thus turning a community service announcement into a hybrid of a campaign promotion plus news.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...-thursday/
April 6th
Tiffany posts piece writing about her candidacy in the third person.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ncil-seat/
April 26th, today, Tiffany posts a Commentary on Community Associations that right out of the gate reminds everyone of her candidacy and posts her political website link.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ociations/
She announces her general rule of not mixing news coverage on blog with her campaign business. Then she states she is breaking the rule today, but her justification for doing so is not stated.
She could have written a commentary on community associations without mentioning her candidacy or linking her site, but it seems she didn't want to write the piece without including her platform on what she sees as a solution, and how a council member could make a difference.
I somewhat credit her for acknowledging that she had just crossed the line from commentary on community associations to campaign publicity, but this is transparent as a move to deflect criticism.
I can't help but note that the article has no photo of the people in the front of the room presenting. The only photo is of Tiffany in the audience listening. This really turns the focus of the piece into -- "look at me, I went to the community meeting."
No one said she had to make this rule, but as she did make a rule for herself, I wish she would not make exceptions so soon after announcing that she is taking her campaign to her own site and appointing another editor to cover the campaign.
I can see why someone with a successful press medium at her disposal would be tempted to use it as a vehicle for PR. I don't fault her for using it, per se. I don't know that there is any ethical rule saying a candidate who owns a media outlet can't use it for self promotion. The problem comes in claiming to maintain it as a politically unbiased medium during the editor's own political campaign, and then publishing PR written by the candidate and those approved by the candidate.
I am bothered by the way she makes rules and then makes exceptions for no reason. Tiffany thinks she can successfully dance on the lines, but I disagree. If she can't go a month without blurring her own line, then I don't think that bodes well for her integrity as an elected official. Perhaps it makes her a good fit as a typical elected official with blurry ethical boundaries, but it doesn't do anything for her claim to be offering something new and clean.
It will be interesting to see whether her new political editor starts generating coverage on every community meeting attended by other candidates, to balance out the PR being run on Tiffany's doings. So far I don't see anything.
Speaking of blurring the lines, I was struck by Tiffany's statement today:
quote:That didn't take long to make an exception to her rule.
As you likely know, IÕm running for Hawaii County Council District 5. And I have largely kept my campaign business to another newly formed website. tiffanyedwardshunt.tumblr.com. Today I am making an exception to my general rule not to mix my news business with my political campaign.
Reading this inspired me to go back and find a few other postings I remembered.
March 22
Tiffany announces her candidacy and states that new contributing editor Alan McNarie and other "community contributors" will be covering the campaign on BIC, rather than herself.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...istrict-5/
April 1
Cheryl King highlights Tiffany's candidacy in a submission on candidate filings.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ng-report/
April 6th
Tiffany posts an announcement of a meeting covering eruption concerns, but at the same time announces the public meeting will be an opportunity to meet herself, the candidate. Thus turning a community service announcement into a hybrid of a campaign promotion plus news.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...-thursday/
April 6th
Tiffany posts piece writing about her candidacy in the third person.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ncil-seat/
April 26th, today, Tiffany posts a Commentary on Community Associations that right out of the gate reminds everyone of her candidacy and posts her political website link.
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ociations/
She announces her general rule of not mixing news coverage on blog with her campaign business. Then she states she is breaking the rule today, but her justification for doing so is not stated.
She could have written a commentary on community associations without mentioning her candidacy or linking her site, but it seems she didn't want to write the piece without including her platform on what she sees as a solution, and how a council member could make a difference.
I somewhat credit her for acknowledging that she had just crossed the line from commentary on community associations to campaign publicity, but this is transparent as a move to deflect criticism.
I can't help but note that the article has no photo of the people in the front of the room presenting. The only photo is of Tiffany in the audience listening. This really turns the focus of the piece into -- "look at me, I went to the community meeting."
No one said she had to make this rule, but as she did make a rule for herself, I wish she would not make exceptions so soon after announcing that she is taking her campaign to her own site and appointing another editor to cover the campaign.
I can see why someone with a successful press medium at her disposal would be tempted to use it as a vehicle for PR. I don't fault her for using it, per se. I don't know that there is any ethical rule saying a candidate who owns a media outlet can't use it for self promotion. The problem comes in claiming to maintain it as a politically unbiased medium during the editor's own political campaign, and then publishing PR written by the candidate and those approved by the candidate.
I am bothered by the way she makes rules and then makes exceptions for no reason. Tiffany thinks she can successfully dance on the lines, but I disagree. If she can't go a month without blurring her own line, then I don't think that bodes well for her integrity as an elected official. Perhaps it makes her a good fit as a typical elected official with blurry ethical boundaries, but it doesn't do anything for her claim to be offering something new and clean.
It will be interesting to see whether her new political editor starts generating coverage on every community meeting attended by other candidates, to balance out the PR being run on Tiffany's doings. So far I don't see anything.