Two recent revelations about the validity of comments being posted on blogs are raising some interesting questions. In one instance, an LA Times columnist was caught in April posting comments to his own blog under a pseudonym.  More recently, bloggers have identified an apparent coordinated effort to post opposing views on some pro-Net Neutrality blogs with concerns that the effort is being funded by the opposition. (For more on both, see Mark Glaser's Media Shift.) In both instances, it kind of feels like cheating, doesn't it? This isn't how discussions on blogs are supposed to work. This probably isn't the first time this has happened. But, now that it's out in the open, we need to consider the ramifications. How will this affect the exchange of

ideas in the blogosphere? Will comments be valued less? What I fear is that these recent actions will stifle discussion by giving everyone a convenient excuse to discount valid criticism and opposing views. Don't like what you read? No problem, simply suggest conspiracy and ignore it. Instead, what I hope is that this turns out to be a lesson for everyone. The blogosphere is a forum for discussion and debate. Advocacy and persuasion will obviously play an important role in these debates, but you cannot trick people into agreeing with you. Want to create a coordinated response to a topic being discussed on the blogs? Great! Find people who agree with you and go for it. Start a blog and recruit other bloggers. Our advice is to engage in the debate. Join the discussion. Be transparent about who you are and what you have to say.  This protects the value of the ideas being discussed whether it's coming from a private citizen or an employee in a company or non-profit organization. Organizations ignore the blogosphere at their peril.  But, organizations that try to cheat and bypass all of the hard work it takes to present new ideas and build support on the blogs are in danger of getting burned.