Dave Winer has a spot-on post this morning about reporters accepting freebies; that is to say, the ethical implications of reporters who cover Twitter but who receive huge, measurable benefits by being placed on Twitter’s Suggested User List (SUL).
“The New York Times and many other media outlets ban the acceptance of these freebies on ethical grounds, because there could be an appearance of buying favorable coverage.” To me, the free placement on the SUL and the benefits it bestows, are exactly equivalent. Elsewhere in the Times, and in many other media outlets, the number of followers is treated as a measure of relevance.
The issue that Dave explores is just the tip of the iceberg, however. The larger question is how, when large journalistic institutions are fragmenting into ever smaller organizations (often single individuals who run a blog), does a journalist maintain integrity and yet make a living? A solo journalist cannot establish a firewall between the revenue-producing and the editorial sides of the business, for they are both the same. In essence, it means that every individual who blogs alone, and who makes money from her blogging, is at the least tempted or at the worst corrupted by the influence of those who are paying the bills.
You’ve done the research, gathered the data, created your beautiful charts and graphs, maybe even added a video or a soundtrack. Now you have to take your precious 
