Accepting vendor perks -or- How unbiased are you?

Walt Crawford recently wrote to me about my Gorman blog post, asking if I really believed that "once someone has held an elective office, they should be bound for the rest of their lives by the same boundaries that would apply while they're in office?"  We replied back and forth, rather lengthily, and what came out of my responses formed up nicely into a post that I thought I’d share.

Objectivity and Being in the Public Eye

I believe that the values that one holds as a professional librarian, and also as a writer, depend greatly on objectivity and the ability to keep an even eye on things around us.  Having risen to the greatest height, some would argue, within our profession, I believe Michael Gorman should have that kind of objectivity and professionalism down pat.  But apparently not. 

If I quit librarianship today I wouldn't blog/write/etc. for a for-profit company that is selling something, particularly something within our field.  Why?

1. I have professional values that require objectivity and
2. Others in the field know my name, and trust me to give good advice.

I can't stop being LiB, just as Gorman can't stop being ALA President or the AACR2 guy.  He is remembered for that, and therefore others trust him and his opinion.  To violate that by being a shill for a company is just plain crap.  I don't believe in it.  I won't ever do it, even if I'm broke.  There is a certain level of trust that exists once you're in the public eye, and to ignore it, to pretend it's not there, does a disservice to yourself and to your readers/followers/cheerleaders.

Objectivity and Accepting Vendor $ or the Equivalent

I wouldn't eat a lunch provided by a vendor, or take a gift, or anything else.  I've never accepted anything from a vendor other than the cheap swag offered at conferences.  I do think that accepting anything--money for writing, a lunch in hopes that you'll buy their product, etc.--clouds your judgment.  If you become friends, even "pretend smiley-face ha-ha-ha" friends, with a vendor--your mind is likely to want to deal with that person ( e.g. buy that person's product) over a competitor's (who you don't know).  I'd like to believe that we all could keep our objectivity, above all of that schmooze, but I don't think it's possible. 

Writing for a publication usually is for something peer-reviewed at some level.  You submit something to them in the hopes they'll publish it.  If they choose to, you get some dough (maybe).  It's different to write for a professional publication (online or in print) than it is to write for the company itself, which is what it is when you're writing for their company blog (as Gorman is doing).  If you worked for the company, go ahead.  But if you don't, one has to ask--what are you getting out of it?  Most likely money.

I guess it's this--with publications, authors are the ones starting the association.  We submit materials, they choose whether or not to use it, and we get something out of it in the end (maybe).   When it's the other way around, the company initiating the association, that's when it gets fuzzy.  So...

• "If you give us quality material we can use in this professional publication, we might publish it and will give you $500."

            vs.

• "Here's $500.  Write something for our company's publication."

I think that #2 invites bias...invites ass-kissing...invites jeopardizing one's integrity.  Theoretically, that could happen with #1 too, but I think it's a lot less likely--because if this publication doesn't like what you've written, you have a lot of other ones to choose from.

I guess that's my line: if you're doing it for a company (directly) and for money or some other reward, or otherwise gaining some kind of benefit from association with that company, then I do believe you lose your objectivity.  Maybe that's a high standard, but it's mine and I'm sticking to it.