Wanting something done, and getting that something done are quite different tasks, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is discovering, yet once again. The FTC would like bloggers to disclose their connections to products or manufacturers when hyping a particular product or service, particularly in “non-traditional contexts”, such as tweets. The FTC wants to make sure you, the average consumer, isn’t being mislead by the endorsement. But how to do it?

The first of the FTC’s problems is identifying who is subject to the rules. That seems to be a simple one: if you write about a product or service online, presumably only if in glowing terms, then you qualify--be you a “celebrity or a mommy blogger.”

Second, how do you force disclosure? The FTC doesn’t want people to think there will be “storm troopers taking down suburban houses and seizing the computers of mommy bloggers.” (Storm troopers don’t do much positive for the FTC’s public image.) The FTC is saying they’ll take a less aggressive approach, paying a watchful eye on whether the claims about a product are true, or can be substantiated. If not, then the hammer comes down, but with an emphasis on companies rather than individuals.

The FTC says its rules for disclosure will apply in cases when consumers have a “reasonable expectation” that the author is not being paid to shill a product or service. “If the consumer knew that the person who was making that endorsement was being paid, would the consumer view that endorsement differently? I think that’s the bottom that we’re trying to get at,” said Leonard Gordon, FTC Northeast Regional Director.

The free lunch of information on the Internet is about to end, if The Associated Press (AP) and Rupert Murdoch’s News Crop. have their way. Murdoch threw down the gauntlet during his opening address at the World Media Summit in Bejing, stating “the aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content.”

The issue, for Curly and Murdoch, is the use of their content in search engines, by aggregators, and by bloggers. For too long, according to Tom Curley, chief executive of the AP, have the likes of Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook gotten a free ride on the backs of the “people who devote themselves--at great human and economic cost--to gather news of public interest.” It’s now time to pay up.

The AP’s position is logical given its present financial situation, and the shifting nature of advertising on the Internet. The AP saw a decrease of revenues, from $748 million in 2008 to $700 in 2009, in part due to a shifting away from traditional news sources. Murdoch, on the other hand, is just being Murdoch, advancing his long held views that news content, regardless of how provided, should be paid for. The Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal online already requires a subscription, and Murdoch is exploring similar options for his other holdings, including The New York Post and The London Times.

If the AP and News Corp. are successful, other news providers are certain to follow. This could be bad news for bloggers, many of who consolidate and interpret breaking information from a variety of sources to keep their readers informed. It would also serve to suppress the relatively free-flow of information the Internet now experiences.