I just found this article about Wal-Mart on the New York Times [You may need to register - it's free]. Pretty interesting stuff. Basically, Wal-Mart's PR agency is seeking out potentially sympathetic bloggers, and then feeding them tidbits of news, in an attempt to improve their... somewhat sub-par image.

And I don't really think that's a problem. They're targeting an audience that probably contains a lot of the people who foster anti-Wal-Mart sentiment in an... innovative (?) way. The problem is that people aren't quoting their sources.

If I know that a piece of news is coming straight from Wal-Mart HQ, and that the blogger is "in the loop" with W-M insiders (apparently some bloggers are getting "incentives" like tours of headquarters... uh... not sure I'd call that an incentive?), then I know that they're presenting an opinion with a certain bias, and I treat that piece of information appropriately. If I don't know that fairly important little fact, then I might treat the information quite a bit differently.

Some of the bloggeres are pointing to mainstream media in an attempt to legitimize their lack of sourcing... And fair enough. Mainstream media doesn't always quote their sources, but you usually hear when something is coming from an insider. And more importantly... I can name more than a few "mainstream media" organisations that shouldn't exactly be considered role-models for the provision of information.