wheel - 1:31 pm on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0) No, the traditional media is quite willing to stretch things where they need to in order to make a buck these days.
There is nothing new here or more difficult than what exists for media, including international media chains.(so there goes the "what about where it's hosted" arguments).
Traditional media ethics won't fly with me. Our largest national chain in the past year has done the following:
1) spammed my 12 year old kid's email (that I intercept) on his blog about toys, wondering if he'd like to advertise. They're scraping directories for sites, scraping the site for an email, then blasting the email.
2) they have websites that directly compete in my market. And they take out huge ads in all of their papers - from the national dailies to the local rural weeklies. Full page ads sometimes. But they're there all the time. And nowhere - on the site or the ads do they disclose that the site (which has nothing to do with media, it's aking to a mortgage lead site) is owned by them. In fact, until they got called out on it, the about page talked about the 'founder and president', a celebrity who'd long since been bought out. So they're giving the impression that there's a company in my niche that can afford to run huge ongoing ads in these papers, when in fact they get their ads for free. I can't afford that kind of exposure. The fact that the ownership is hidden is telling.
No, the traditional media is quite willing to stretch things where they need to in order to make a buck these days.