Advertisers...demands skirt FTC Rules & Regulations!

Occasionally, the gall of some individuals boggles the mind!

The other day, a potential advertiser zipped off an e-mail to me, expressing an interest in posting a link on “The Tattler” site.

In my response, I quoted the fee due and the terms and conditions of the advertising agreement.

When I received a reply back, I was a little startled by the advertiser's  request.

For starters - the individual countered with a rate offer which was bit lower than my going ad fees -  but I was willing to work with the company to bring them into the fold (so-to-speak).

But, the stipulations for the the text ad - and links - were a little off-putting.

For example, the female liaison was quite adamant that I rustle up a post to promote their product  (300 words in length) to include a couple of links to their client's web site.

“I don’t care about editorial control,” she wrote, just before hurling the communication my way over the Internet at lightning speed by e-mail.

Of course, the ignorance of the woman astounded me.

For example, in recent months the Federal Trade Commission became concerned that bloggers were flogging products “for pay” on web sites without proper legal disclosure.

So, the Government watch-dog agency implemented a set of rules and regulations to prevent abuses (such as deceptive business practices and potential fraud) on the Internet.

Bottom line?

Was a blogger promoting a product because he or she backed the item or service one-hundred percent or simply because it was a case of pay-to-play?

In my reply, I noted - rightly so - that when it came to my writing (and the Tattler) I endeavored to maintain integrity in my personal and professional affairs ( it's called journalistic ethics).

I am always seeking subjects to pen a feature on that may be of interest to my readers, though, so it is wholly possible that on occasion I might act on a tip or allow for a post touting a product based on my belief in its value or potential interest to readers.

But, in the specific situation aforementioned, I felt a full disclosure (or disclaimer) - posted in plain view - would be required to satisfy FTC concerns.

Shortly after the FTC regulation kicked in last September, I posted one such disclaimer when I raved about a  local gym - 24 hour fitness - in West Hollywood.

Because my review was glowing - it occurred to me that readers or new visitors to the site unfamiliar with my policies - might assume I benefited (got paid, received a free membership, etc.) from publishing the plug.

I didn’t.

Nonetheless, I posted a notice disclosing that I was not influenced by any incentive, payment, etc.

Once I made a decision on the post noted herein above, I notified the advertiser that - based on the subject matter - I was going to give the green light on the ad.

At this point, I instructed the party to make their payment in advance (in full), and also be sure to include background information on the web site to facilitate the penning of the article.

At this juncture, the advertiser started to play games, which didn’t set well with me.

For starters, the rep noted that her client  preferred to pay only half the sum up-front, with a promise to send on the balance after the material was reviewed and "approved".

Uh-huh.

Initially, the PR office assured me there was “no interest” in editorial control.

When it came time to close the deal, however, they changed their tune.

Or,  were they playing games all along?

Notwithstanding, because I discounted the ad space fee - and they were a first-time advertiser - I could not accept their demands to pay half up front, preview the material, then pay the balance after “copy” approval.

Did they honestly think I have stupid written on my forehead?

Golly, I wasn't born yesterday!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Blogging...artist's multi-media-rich canvas! Art reflects times...

All of my life I have been an artist - so, of course - I have the temperament.

Whenever I create a painting or a piece of writing I do so with the intent of making a statement.

After all, art should reflect the times we are living in.

The role of the artist is to teach and enlighten and inspire.

With the advent of the internet and its subsequent popularity - and the development of nifty multi-media-rich blog sites - a new canvas sprang forth which was perfect for my own talents.

For example, my flair for - design, graphics, and color - could be applied to craft an eye-catching aesthetically-pleasing web site that exalted my own sense of style.

Unlike a book that may take a year or two to publish - there is an immediacy to blog posts, too - which has widespread appeal.

When it comes to social and political issues, a blog is a great way to get the word out fast, to the multitudes.

During the process, hopefully, a blogger will be able to raise the consciousness.

Initially, folks were up-in-arms and raged about the legitimacy of blogging.

To some, bloggers who penned articles on hard news - the election, profiles on public figures, social ills, etc. - were somehow not legit.

Journalists early on complained that bloggers didn't have the professional training - and that their lack of ethical standards - tended to throw a wild card into the mix.

Then, as newspaper sales plummeted - and bloggers started to rustle up some clout on the Internet - the dailies sat up and took notice.

Today, most journalists with major newspapers, have blogs that are universally accepted.

Bloggers have not only risen above the adversity in media circles, but are often quoted today, as reliable sources.

I have found that the lowly masses - at times - still shake their heads, though.

If a blogger writes an informative well-researched tell-all  piece - that happens to be controversial in nature - more often-than-not they get lambasted.

“Who do these bloggers think they are,” is the common lament heard across the land.

I pen my thoughts on the human condition - report on what I perceive all around me - and offer up a commentary on occasion.

I’m no different than a mainstream journalist who boasts a daily column in a high-profile publication.

When Andy Rooney spouts off on 60 minutes - no one questions his authority - or right to express his point of view.

Fox pundits hurl outrageous barbs (and half-truths) and no one bats an eye!

“Oh, that’s just Fox,” folks slyly wink.

Even the outlandish screaming headlines in the exploitative tabloids - grocery market fodder at the check-out line - are considered the norm (nothing to pooh pooh).

But, if a blogger does it?

The truth of the matter is that many get slammed.

I say, every forum has its merits and degrees of legitimacy.

So, I am no different than any other media outlet at the Tattler, in the final analysis.

I may take a pot shot at a store that rips people off, focus on a celebrity gaining notoriety, or toss a searing spotlight a news event that has taken the country by storm.

Or, simply muse on day-to-day events that touch people.

The Tattler's slogan is aptly titled:  A Slice of Life.

As far as I am concerned, that's my job, my lot in life (as an artist).

Just recently I was thrilled to hear a major film director point out to an interviewer that in film school, his professor hammered into his students, that every human being has a story worth telling.

It is an artist’s duty to makes sense of it - and tell it from their unique point of view - he noted in so many words.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Daily, my dramas and light-hearted adventures, unfold on my blog.

Judging by the numbers (hits) quite a few people are either educated, entertained , or downright intrigued by what I have to say.

As a mainstream alternative, I do pretty well!

And, what of the critics?

If I am not your cup of tea, then surf on to the next site.

Good riddance!

Ultimately, the Tattler is geared toward sophisticated intelligent individuals, who have a keen sense about Literature, and the role that the artist plays in the modern day.

Now,  if I could only get down to writing that Great Canadian Novel!

Carl Jung once said:

"Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. To perform this difficult office it is sometimes necessary for him to sacrifice happiness and everything that makes life worth living for the ordinary human being."

http://www.thetattler.com/

TMZ...Michael Jackson scoop! Stooping low, according to legit press...

On Sunday, I was perusing the weekend edition of the LA Times, when I spied a feature criticizing TMZ gossip-mongers for swooping down like vultures on the Michael Jackson tragedy - and patting themselves on the back after-the-fact - for scooping the rest of the ravenous blood-thirsty pack come press deadline.

"Everyone knows we broke the story," Levin boasted in so many words.

Frankly, I was a little surprised by Harvey's curious conduct in this regard.

For starters, in my estimation, it is pretty much a given on the cut-throat landscape of news (and scandal) reporting on the West Coast, that Levin - or one of his eager-beaver cub scouts - will usually nab a breaking-news feature long before the competition has finished scratching around trash bins and dirty laundry for the clues.

Is Levin feeling the heat?

Aw, come on!

Those other newsies are a bunch of jealous cry-babies, anxious to carve up your territory, Harv.

Yup, they're lookin' to knock 'ya off your high horse.

In this shake-down scenario, anyway.

"This is a critical moment for TMZ, " the Times' writers snicker.

Naw, don't think so.

You'd like to bet the farm on it, though, right?

After throwing a little scare into Levin, who was no doubt anxiously perusing the red-hot copy on the sidelines, the troublesome twosome proceeded to sing the TMZ host's praises for a paragraph or two.

"Its reputation for breaking big celebrity news has made TMZ.com an online sensation with an estimated readership of 4.1 million according to Web Measurement Services."

Then, Scott Collins and Meg James go in for the kill.

"But the Jackson drama puts the spotlight on TMZ at a delicate time: its tactics have stoked growing outrage among publicists (hate 'em!) and government officials (they come in handy, on occasion). "

For this reason, the dynamic newsies at the Times, conjectured that advertisers have been hesitant to plunk cash down for print ads at TMZ.com or for lucrative commercial spots on the TV version of the pot-boiler bill-of-fare which broadcasts in tandem with the webbie offering.

Others will come running, so what's the big deal?

In fact, just as I was pondering this, the article zig-zagged off and noted for the record that TMZ officials were pleased with the outcome in recent days.

After all, the Jackson "scoop" took TMZ to a new level of recognition.

And, some touted that outcome as a triumph of the new rich media over the staid old.

Even still, in spite of silly off-point hysterical musings over the issues that missed their mark for the most part - and a lot of positive press for TMZ - the slightly-harried-looking Levin complained that "no one" gave TMZ the credit - for not only getting the story right - but getting it on tap for consumer consumption before the ink at big gun media outlets was even dry.

On the contrary, when I penned and posted my report on Twitter at approximately 3:23 pm on the fateful day in question, I noted that Levin and TMZ.com were abreast of the story as it was unfolding.

Specifically - I gave Levin and his team the nod for getting the word out to fans and the public in general - about Jackson's cardiac arrest, the CPR efforts by a firefighter to revive the ailing Pop Star, and the subsequent whirlwind emergency flight by helicopter to UCLA Medical Center.

Apologies accepted, Sir!

The front-page article went on to probe some of the tactics TMZ has allegedly facilitated in the past to unearth documents and obtain highly-sensitive information with the sinister aim of securing said for "exclusivity" rights.

Hard-core critics like Rob Silverstein - Executive Producer at Access Hollywood - griped that the TMZ staff were not beneath paying for top-secret paperwork and crucial eye-witness testimony.

Along with high-profile rivals, Silverstein contended that Levin and his company have been engaging in unethical journalistic practices which most news-gathering organizations do not allow reporters and editors to entertain from the get-go.

"But, I don't have absolute proof," the annoyed Exec fessed up.

In response, individuals on the other side of the battle lines simply shrugged, and innocently argued that people "just wanted to get their stories out".

Levin, who usually sidesteps the issue, confided to a New York Times reporter (in the wake of the pointed fingers and raging controversy) that the site paid "tip fees" that usually led to stories.

But, spokespeople for TMZ stressed for the record that the mad money laid out for "leads", were not used for "buy outs" or "exclusivity agreements".

The lawyer-Levin - well-versed in the law - is no fool.

The New York Times would probably scrounge about - and ferret out any smoking gun by simply enlisting the sniffing capacities of their own well-placed moles - so the genial gossip maven was smart to "admit" up front.

All of the characters in this tawdry tale sound like scrappers and dirty street-fighters to me.

To add a little color to the mix - and twist the knife in just a tad - the Times' staff writers also took a brief foray into the shadowy realm of TMZ's routine sleaze-ball coverage - sensational peak-a-boo out-takes and scandalous low-brow celebrity teases, for instance - they argued sullied legit attempts by TMZ to gain solid footing in mainstream reporting around the country where ethics in journalism are a prerequisite.

What is the crime committed here?

TMZ led the horses to water, and they slurped it all up, naturally.

Which segues into the next titillating point.

Popularity is up!

"We're very pleased with the ratings," quipped the Senior Vice President of programming for Fox, which airs TMZ on 17 stations around the country.

It is no mystery then as to why Fox intends to broadcast TMZ for at least two more years.

If he isn't already, maybe Levin should start slipping a little something into that designer cup glued in his hand during broadcast - brimming with a mystery elixir 'til now - to help him relax.

Is that the next scandal brewing?

News at 11!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Burn After Reading...ticket sales drop as predicted. Film fizzles. LA Times misrepresents facts!

Last week, I predicted that once the word got out that the new Coen release - "Burn After Reading" - was basically a piece of celluloid crap, that the ticket sales would drop off.

Opening week - due in large part to the all-star cast (which included Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and John Malkovich) "Burn" managed to rustle up approximately $25 million.

However - now that the theatre-going public has gotten wind of the fact that "Burn" is a bit of a stinker - Box Office has dropped off by over fifty percent.

Meanwhile, in the business section of the LA TIMES this morning, the paper falsely represented that the "dark spy comedy" was gaining momentum - when, in fact - it is losing its legs!

Notwithstanding this glaring irregularity, their list of top ten films does not accurately reflect the facts either; especially when you consider that "The Duchess" and "Appaloosa" had strong sales in limited release around the country over the weekend.

In sum, the top ten list the Times is touting, doesn't mean diddly-squat!

Part of the problem is that writers at the Times are not only inexperienced (incompetent at interpreting data and facts) but are also inclined to be biased in their reporting.

In addition, the paper kow-tows to advertisers to curry favor and boost sales, which doesn't bode well for ethics in journalism.

Understandably, the morning daily has lost its credibility as a legitimate news outlet.

In fact, smart readers are turning to the New York Times by the droves!

The more practical ones - on the other hand - are using the main sections of the LA rag to line their kitty litter boxes.

Zell must be turning over in his grave!

In sum, features in the Los Angeles Times amount to:

"All the news that isn't fit to print"



Can't all be winners, 'ya know...