I wanted to respond to this post in part because Brady mentions book reviewers among his list of people who need and get free stuff as a matter of course. Also, Paul used to be my editor so I'm sure he's already found an error in here that has caused him to stop reading, or he just stopped now that I so rudely referred to him by his first name. (But if you're still reading, I'll take that fruit basket now. 14th floor.)
Let's be fair, I could still write reviews without publishers' galleys and ARCs, but they would be either not current, or few and far between. I could not afford to purchase the number of new books that fall into my possession through reviewing; I would be either waiting to get them at the library, borrowing them from other people or hoping they would turn up on Bookmooch. (Or reading them in a Borders and not buying them... oh wait.) I know this makes me lucky. I know it. The way I square that bounty with my sense of ethics is to donate my old galleys and review copies, instead of selling them as I have heard some people do, and to try to share the wealth as much as possible among friends and family.
But if I ever got the opportunity to speak somewhere and was compensated somehow for it, you bet your stack of Proust I would take it. (Inquire within! Variable rates! May be funny!)
That said, speaking for "the book review people — rare though they may be" I can't remember the last time I was accused of being biased toward a book I reviewed just because I got it for free -- not that it doesn't happen, but no recent example comes to mind.
- Is it because a book is $20-$30 and a press trip can be hundreds or thousands of dollars?
- Is it because my audience is (perceived as) too small, because I don't write for the New York Times?
- Is it because the people who make such accusations either don't know, or don't care, that the world of publishing can be insular-to-downright-stuffy and that there is some favor trading out there?
- Or is it because I write for print publications that are considered as holding to a higher standard than Ellen's Wee Book Reviewe Shoppe-Emporium (Dot Blogspot Dot-Com)?
It would be unfair to insist a person who writes a blog as a hobby must provide objective coverage, acknowledge biases and reflect a balance of opinions in the same way a newspaper would. If I wanted to open Ellen Hated This Book Dot Tumblr-Dot-Com in my spare time, making .3 cents per Amazon referral once in a blue moon, that should be my right. (It's not a terrible idea. I should have started it during my ragier days.) Still, when the FTC implemented blogger disclosure two years ago, it didn't direct the same scrutiny toward newspapers or magazines, implying that the buck stops somewhere, even if it's not here.
My own conclusion (which I think aligns with Paul's analysis) is that no one is above reproach, and everyone has a bias. I can be trusted and still have a bias. And when I review something, I should think "If I hadn't gotten this for free, would I consider it a good value? Would I recommend a friend pay full price for it?" I think that's a more important question than "To what ethics should we hold our writers?" Not that there shouldn't be a standard -- but as in so many arenas, if we can't all agree on the standard, then we must set it by ourselves.
*And that imitation isn't even of a book blogger but from a sector of bloggers I see as much more prone to rubber-stamping their product recommendations, the "healthy living" bloggers. This can tend to backfire when they all get offered the same products within a few days. Love, and the Internet loves with you, etc.
