Seems Michael Arrington and a bunch of other A list bloggers allowed their words to be used in a way that resulted in their words being used to support a advertisers campaign without clearly indicating that those words were bought and paid for by the advertiser.
Now to me that sounds a lot like PayPerPost the words used where part of a slogan that Microsoft encouraged them to use in their articles they wrote. At the same time Microsoft was supposedly paying for CPA type banners on their websites.
There is clearly a line that has been crossed here. Contextually the advertising message should always be separated from the content unless clearly marked. While I very openly support my sponsors the sponsors message is always clearly defined.
I kinda liken this almost to having a conversation with a friend and he tells me about a great car dealership and a specific salesman, well would my opinion change the next day if I found out that salesman had paid my friend a $1000.00 to tell me that. Valleywag
