Anytime a journalist, reporter or blogger has a possible conflict of interest regarding the topic they are covering, it should absolutely be disclosed each and every time as a matter of transparency.
Expecting every reader of this post to know who Marco is, who he consults for and which of his previous posts references his employment situation is a bit much.
Also, your self-aggrandizing condescension is not appreciated here.
Anytime a journalist, reporter or blogger has a possible conflict of interest regarding the topic they are covering, it should absolutely be disclosed each and every time as a matter of transparency.
No. A traditional journalist has a conflict of interest when their personal investment or other relationship conflicts with their duty of care to their employer the newspaper or magazine or whatever. That's the conflict: Between their interest and their employer's interest.
If any of these people are self-employed or representing their own personal views and not speaking on behalf of their employer, they have no conflict of interest because they have no second interest. There is only their own interest.
You as a reader may have an interest and it may conflict with a blogger's interest, but the blogger owes you nothing unless you pay them to give you impartial research, in which case you are a client, not a reader.
A blog is no different from one of those ghost-written business hagiographies, full of self-serving writing and written to further the author's interests. If you want to be sure you are getting an impartial viewpoint, then please do your research and decide for yourself whether a particular blogger's viewpoint is biased or not.
One of the nice things about a blog is that you have the author's entire post history to peruse in order to judge bias. Much different than an isolated article in a third-party publication.
That's a bit like saying the only people who should wash their hands after using the john are those who work in food service. Just because the duty exists in a profession doesn't mean it doesn't also exist elsewhere.
The duty to disclose happens any time you want to maintain the trust of others in your objectivity.
Example: Say I'm having a beef with my girlfriend. My fictional co-worker Billy really wants to date her. If he gives me advice to break up with her while keeping his desire a secret, he commits a breach of trust. His interest in advising me soundly has now conflicted with his interest in hooking up. When I later discover this breach, the trust is eroded.
He doesn't have to disclose anything. But if he wants people to continue reading his blog while trusting his position comes from ideals instead of self-interest, it might be a good idea.
Hey, if you want to gain people's trust by disclosing your investments whenever you write a blog post, tweet, or comment on HN, go wild. I never said don't do it.
However, I reject the suggestion that failing to do so is like serving unclean food. If writing is like food, it is clean or it isn't and washing your hands is like spell-checking or fact-checking, not like disclosing your personal interests.
Otherwise, I accept the analogy that writing a blog post is like using the john. Or at least, looking at my writing, I see the comparison is apt.
Fair enough. The comments here bring up some excellent points; my background in journalism probably colored my perspective a bit. Also, I appreciate your rephrasing your original comment, much better :)
Expecting every reader of this post to know who Marco is, who he consults for and which of his previous posts references his employment situation is a bit much.
Also, your self-aggrandizing condescension is not appreciated here.