Blog fact-checkers, Foxx’s support
Posted April 14th, 2008 at 8:30 AM by Jon HamThe main criticism the mainstream media has of bloggers is that they’re just pajama-wearing losers sitting in their basements commenting on stuff without (horrors!) editors. But that view of the denizens of the blogosphere is fast becoming passe. Check out this from Ad Age magazine:
Bloggers, with their witty posts and reputation for carefully vetting information, are fast becoming the most trusted resource for truly green products and promotions. As David Binkowski, senior VP-director of word-of-mouth marketing at Manning Selvage & Lee put it, “[It] better not just be window dressing, because bloggers fact-check everything.”
Maybe that’s why U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is one of 34 sponsors of the Blogger Protection Act in the U.S. House:
“We must not leave the First Amendment rights of bloggers in the hands of the Federal Election Commission,” Foxx said in a statement. “Bloggers’ rights are too important to leave them to the whims of a panel of federal regulators.”
Good for her. Unfortunately, she’s the only North Carolina House Member to sign on to the bill as a co-sponsor. What’s up with that?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Could it be the other members don’t exactly like the wild-and-wooly nature of the Net? It’s much the same story out of Wisconsin’s representation; the only co-sponsor from here is my ‘Critter, Paul Ryan.
Up the sponsor count to 36 plus Puerto Rico’s nonvoting representative, but keep the Dem sponsor count at 0.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am
[...] I should’ve pounced on this when Fausta had it almost 2 weeks ago, but it took Jon Ham’s catch of North Carolina’s lone co-sponsor to get me jumping. Rep. Jeb Hensarling introduced The Blogger Protection Act, H.R. 5699, on April 3. The bill is designed to put into the United States Code the current Federal Election Commission regulations that give bloggers the same protection from campaign finance laws given the rest of the media and declares advocacy by uncompensated bloggers does not constitute a contribution to a candidate. [...]