Rich Cleland, a man that I’ve put out numerous requests for comment to without response as well as someone I’ve tried unsuccessfully to research background on this week, has been more prolific in his comments to the Old Media on the new FTC rules than I have (and I’ve appeared on five audio podcasts and put up close to a dozen posts on the topic here at SiliconANGLE and elsewhere).

For months, he’s been intimating and often explicitly saying that the burden of disclosure rests with the blogger, under the FTC’s new blogger disclosure guidelines. Even if you read the original guideline documentation very closely, it makes it very plain that they’re going after bloggers, not necessarily advertisers (within the context of social media and blogging).

He’s made an attempt to wipe all previous comments out of the public’s memory, though, in an interview with FastCompany yesterday.

In the interview, he responds to various blogger complaints on the new FTC regulations:

Heather B. Armstrong, author of parenting blog Dooce: “Eleven thousand dollars is a little crazy for a post. Maybe I’m being naïve, but I think a lot of people who are in violation [of not disclosing] just don’t know that they’re supposed to.”

Richard Cleland: “That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law…

… and …

Brian Lam, editorial director of Gizmodo: “Some colleagues of mine just reminded me of how many freelance pro journalists take junkets. In the end, I’m glad these rules are being introduced, but it’s kind of stupid to attach unethical behavior to a particular publishing medium. Look at how shitty TV journalism can be, by and large.”

RC: “It’s not the medium, it’s the message. We want to establish a self-imposed ethical standard so people are aware of the conflicts of interest…

I’ve included Rich’s responses here, because that last one in particular is a perfect example of the lack of logic applied to the thinking here: the FTC wishes to establish for you a “self-imposed ethical standard.”  If it’s self-imposed, how can they establish it for me?

I digress.

Getting back to the original issue – Rich Cleland’s apparent inability to form a cogent narrative or form educated information around social media.

As I stated before, I’ve had press inquiries in with the FTC in general and Rich Cleland specifically going back about three months, and as of early this week, I’ve been asking around with my DC contacts for anyone to provide information on this fellow.  I was coming up empty until I came across a short bio on a Webinar Rich Cleland is set to take part in early November.

Here’s his bio, my emphasis added:

Richard Cleland joined the Federal Trade Commission’s Division of Advertising Practices in 1991.  In 1996, he was appointed assistant to the director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and, in 1998, named assistant director of the Division of Service Industry Practices.  He currently serves as assistant director of the Division of Advertising Practices.  Cleland’s primary area of expertise is the advertising and marketing of health-related products and services.  He also supervises many of FTC’s health fraud and weight-loss product and service law enforcement initiatives, and supervised the Commission’s review of the Endorsement and Testimonial Guides.  Prior to joining FTC, Cleland served as special assistant attorney general and director of the Division of Consumer Protection in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office.

The man doesn’t engage in social media.  He doesn’t have a LinkedIn page or a Facebook page – believe me, those were the first places I looked.  He doesn’t maintain or interact with blogs, either on a personal or professional level (giving interviews only to large New Media organizations or entrenched Old Media organizations).

And his background is in weight-loss product regulation.

Sounds like the perfect person to set the agenda on social media disclosure rules and regulations to me.

Listen to the most recent episode of CobWEBs Daily Edition, in which Sean P. Aune and I try to maintain our cool in light of Rich’s interview with FastCompany (MP3 or embed below).