Without proper disclosure, credibility is questionable.

My first marriage ended in divorce.

Since then, I’ve remarried.

These facts aren’t intended to be surprising, and probably won’t create much of a stir in the minds of most readers, but for me to inform you of these and other aspects of my background is a pertinent form of disclosure, something that helps readers establish context and a sense of perspective with respect to my credibility as a blogger.

Dependent, of course, on what I’ve chosen to write.

For example, my other primary blog, The Potable Curmudgeon, is devoted to beer and various issues pertaining to it. While ethical guidelines still are evolving in the blogosphere, one thing I know for certain without being told is that it would be improper for me to discuss the world of beer without my first informing readers that beer is my business and sole source of personal income.

Why? Perhaps I’m touting a beer simply because it’s on draft at my pub and I’d like readers to come and buy some of it. Maybe a brewer has provided me with a gift to sing the praises of his beer.

To be sure, I don’t tend to vend beers I don’t personally like or that I fail to appreciate in one manner or another. Also, although I receive point-of-sale materials and other business-related items from brewers and wholesalers, it’s usually reinforcing a relationship rather than creating one.

I was given Corona promotional materials recently, but didn’t write favorably about Corona. I detest it, and it is sold ay my pub only so I can determine the highest price people are prepared to pay for bad beer. The P.O.S. materials were transferred directly to the dumpster.

The preceding disclaimer doesn’t change the fundamental equation. It’s better for it to be understood from the start that as a pub owner, there are potential – not necessarily actual – conflicts of interest with wearing another cap as a beer writer. Accordingly, my quarterly columns for “Food & Dining” magazine clearly identify me as a Publican, and readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to the veracity of my writing.

A proper appreciation of these issues of disclosure, conflict of interest and ethical guidelines probably isn’t necessarily in all fields of endeavor, although each job or pastime has its own rules of the game. But for those aspiring to some semblance of journalism, they’re absolutely vital.

What if I were a business writer for a newspaper, and in an article about the prospects for a new start-up company, my assessment was damning and unfavorable, perhaps doing damage to the image of the new entity?

And what if the owner of the start-up company subsequently was revealed to be the husband of my ex-wife – something I hadn’t bothered disclosing in the original article?

Of course, it’s unlikely such an omission of disclosure would occur, given the customary diligence of newspaper and magazine editors, who are paid to know these things and to prevent such lapses – whether intentional or otherwise – from occurring.

It’s perfectly clear that in such an instance, my credibility as a commentator would be compromised. That’s why it’s much better for any writer to make full disclosure a habit.

Often, this isn’t the case, and that’s unfortunate.

----

Meanwhile, in Friday’s edition of the New Albany Tribune, the recently returned guest columnist Jeff Roudenbush paints an unflattering picture of NA township trustee Tom Cannon’s tenure in office while examining an upcoming primary election challenge to Cannon by Jeannie Freiberger. Jeff’s piece is not yet archived on the Tribune’s web site.

What was that – something about disclosure?

Never mind.