So, I'll put a little stupid blurb at the bottom of posts letting you know that it's a review copy of a book or movie when it is such, and when I remember to. And lest you think that me getting a review copy of something is going to influence my subsequent review, well, let me say this: I reviewed Stan Helsing after receiving a screener. I'll always be honest here, which you probably already know if you've read any of my reviews. I love stuff, I hate stuff, and I'm the first to admit that I love some stuff that sucks and I puke at some stuff that other people love.
So there.
FCC haz a happy
11 comments:
To be fair: I think arthritis has probably made everything "two thumbs up" for FCC Grampy.
Really? Huh... I didn't get the memo.
Never heard of this memo. Are you sure it isn't an urban legend?
As a long-time reader, there's something unwholesome about that development to me. I have been flirting with the idea of my own similar blog (you're so inspirational, Ponder), but that kinda sours me on the whole idea... not that anybody will be missing anything, but it just stinks of some sort of -ism (fascism, authoritarianism, assholism.... some -ism). No, sir. I don't like it.
Well, I didn't get a memo per se, but it's all over The Internets. It sucks, but I suppose it's to protect the consumer (or at least that's the nobler idea behind it). Larger websites are essentially exempt from disclosing because they're categorized much like magazines and newspapers- everyone assumes/knows that journalists go to screenings and receives screener copies. They may not think that about bloggers, however...and I guess it's supposed to be crystal clear so...I don't know. Readers know that my review is...what, influenced by a screener copy? I suppose that happens with some writers, that special perks at a press junket would affect the review of the film. I suppose they just want everyone to know that's possible...? Eh. It shows little faith in both writers and readers.
I'm just playing it safe should Big Brother's eyes ever happen across my little slice of the cyber pie (which will never happen), simply because having to pay a fine would suck.
Please understand that I never meant to imply you could be plied with swag... I trust your opinions to be completely unbiased. It just steams me that a person seemingly can't take a leak anymore without some sort of oversight or regulation.... I trust the Final Girl!!
Oh no, I getcha (and thanks for the vote of confidence). I'll be upfront about swag, as always, and a copy of a movie on DVD isn't going to make the movie any more enjoyable if it's shit- in fact, that's the worst case scenario because then I'm taxed with having a shitty DVD to get rid of. :D
Just wanted to let everyone know why they're supposedly doing this. Next thing you know, I'll have to apply for a blogging license or some shit.
I think it's a matter of what's considered "journalism" and what's not; also, newspapers and magazines may have some sort of professional code that applies to such things. Blogging is still new, and ANYONE (gasp) can become a critic.
If Vogue magazine does an article about some new skin care product, everyone knows that they got free samples to test, and hopefully that their 'reviwew' is unbiased. If you read Jane Schmane's blog from Iowa and she starts raving about the product, you may assume she went out and bought it and is simply sharing info with you, whereas she may have gotten $200 worth of free crap and a gift basket and MAYBE that would influence her review. Full disclosure, I guess. I see where they're coming from, and I do see major sites talking about the 'perks' they get.
Something for the bureaucracy to do.
If I get a screener of a film I don't like, there's a very good chance it just won't get reviewed at all.
hello, I have a question.
WHO IS THE GUY WITH HIS THUMBS UP?
Post a Comment