If you ever need to reach me directly, you can email me directly at jvangrove[at]gmail[dot]com.

What sort of disclosure is reasonable? In the case of TechCrunch, the direct business relationship should have been disclosed, in my opinion. In the case of Mashable, I have no idea how “strong” the connection is between Van Grove and Luft, or between Cashmore and Luft and Ravikant.

The problem is that the people who are doing the reporting are often “players” (small and large) in the industries they’re covering. They often work together and play together. Where their professional relationships end and their personal ones begin is unclear. In many cases, it looks as if no such distinction exists.

Personally, I don’t really care for most of the popular tech blogs these days because I’ve already accepted that the blogosphere is largely a circle jerk. I may not know who is participating in the circle jerk at any given moment but I see all the signs of a circle jerk. Circle jerks retain no credibility with me.

But for people who actually care about Web 2.0, social media, etc. and who implicitly trust that these blogs are applying some journalistic standards this issue is far more problematic.

I suppose the lesson is this: if you’re a fox, don’t put yourself in a position where you’re guarding the hen house.

More on this subject:

http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/366825/mary-meeker-and-the-blogosphere-s-identity-crisis.html

I’ve been thinking about this issue while reading your response. While I’m prepared to accept the possibility that social networking relationships (strong or weak) might be worthy of disclosure, I do wonder how far this goes to make sense.

Yes, we don’t know the extent of those particular relationships. We also have the same staggering lack of knowledge for millions of other relationships.

The timing of two similar articles probably looks suspicious to someone like yourself who researches this kind of thing far more than I do and knows what to look for. I’m prepared to see it as a coincidence, but I could be wrong.

Final point: I disclosed my Mashable contributor status because it was the right thing to do (being an example of a business relationship). That’s pretty concrete and I was well aware of that being the correct protocol. On the other hand, I’ve blogged positively about a number of my Facebook and LinkedIn contacts without divulging that we’re contacts. If I, and thousands of other bloggers, now need to start disclosing all of these contacts based on every Web site we belong to, don’t you think that’s going to get ridiculous after awhile?

Just as a good attorney does everything necessary to ensure that his actions never give the appearance of potential impropriety, a good journalist does everything necessary to ensure that his actions never give the appearance of potential conflict of interest.

Few of the A-listers in the tech blogosphere seem to understand that the appearance of potential conflict is just as problematic as actual conflict and that, ironically, the lack of disclosure only exacerbates the appearance of potential conflict.

I never alleged that any of the bloggers mentioned here were directly profiting from their circle jerk.

TechCrunch’s potential conflict is much more problematic than Mashable’s for the simple reason that the author of the post works for a company that is funded by the same investor who has funded Circle of Moms.

Obviously, we don’t know how deep the relationships between Van Grove and Cashmore and Luft and Ravikant are. I’m told that Cashmore has “thousands” of “friends” on Facebook while Van Grove has far fewer and is not located in the same geographic region as Luft so it appears that there is some sort of relationship.

My question here is this: how did Van Grove find out about Circle of Moms and why did she choose to write about Circle of Moms? Couldn’t one of Mashable’s other writers (not connected in any way to Luft) produce the story on Circle of Moms?

But going beyond this, the larger problem is that in a world where “friends” are reporting on “friends,” backscratching, favoratism and bias inevitably follow. Sometimes this backscratching, favoratism and bias is unconscious but that doesn’t mean that it’s not backscratching, favoratism and bias.

Question: if the New York Times did a piece entitled “Silcion Valley Startups Surviving the Downturn” and you later found out that the author of that story had personal connections to some of the startups mentioned in the article, wouldn’t you wonder why those startups were selected? After all, wouldn’t you question why, out of all the startups in the world, he chose to feature ones that he has some connection to?

Of course you would because most intelligent people can see the obvious potential conflict.

So ask yourself the question: why would Nick Gonzalez decide to write a guest post about a startup run by guy who is friends with his employer’s CEO and who is funded by the investor who backs his employer? Why would Jennifer Van Grove wake up in the morning and decide to write about Circle of Moms on the same day when it’s run by someone she obviously “knows” in some fashion?

The problem: we don’t know the answers to these questions.

For that matter, where’s the proof that Techcrunch, Arrington, or Gonzalez profited from this?

Disclosure: I have written several articles for Mashable.com at standard rates.