Jack Shafer has a problem. In his post earlier this week for Slate, Shafer takes issue with the FTC’s new disclosure rules for bloggers, calling them “preposterous.” Simply stated, if a blogger is writing about a product or service he or she has received free of charge, that arrangement now needs to be clearly identified to the audience. The presumption, of course, is that a blogger’s review could possibly be swayed by the free schwag.

In editorial circles, it’s called payola. And in ethical editorial circles, it’s not tolerated. So why does Shafer have a problem?

He seems pretty blown away by the prospective fines. Yes, $11,000 is a lot. He also doesn’t like the scope of the rules, which he says are vague. But why not err on the side of caution? There are other reasons to do so, aside from fear of prosecution.

I’ve already seen the more sophisticated bloggers embrace the practice of disclosure as a matter of course.

I have a modest background in print publishing, where certain principles became second nature and have spilled over into my somewhat amateurish first foray into blogging. These include disclosure, and asking reprinting permission even when a Creative Commons license is available on the site. Aside from the legal implications now at issue, such practices go a long way in establishing credibility, which is a most valuable asset in social media. They also reinforce online relationships, without which social media would simply be “media.”

It’s really too bad the FTC had to step in on this frontier that many consider the last bastion of freedom of speech. It’s true you can’t believe everything you read and consumers need to practice their measure of due diligence. However, trade is trade – online and off – and the standard for each arena should be, well, standard.

Do you, like Shafer, feel this is just another “mad power grab” by a federal agency? Please share your comments.