Why is this an issue? Do political operatives really think readers online are any more stupid than say, print readers? 

…Liberal, MP Stephen Owen, wants a Commons committee to take a look at the practice of buying Internet headlines.

“The key question is, is this simply a different version of a legitimate practice that is unlimited outside of election writ periods, or is there something about it that’s misleading or takes us beyond ordinary advertising?” Owen said in a recent interview.

“Is it mixing news with advertising in a way that is unethical from a news services point of view? Are you maybe creating some toxic monster?”

Owen said he’ll propose having the Procedure and House Affairs committee examine the issue.

The issue is Pierre Bourque’s (Bourque News) headlines for sale.

…no individual or party is claiming credit for a parallel campaign that’s been waged for weeks on the popular Bourque Newswatch news site.

In the eyes of Elections Canada, that too is advertising – at least if it happens during an election campaign.

“Election advertising means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate,” spokesman Stephane Bechand of Elections Canada said in a recent interview.

That includes messaging that “takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated.”

Friday was a typical day on Bourque, which openly advertises its headline service for sale.

If I see an ad on TV slamming a political leader during an election, even without the disclaimer (paid for by xyz party) I know it has been paid for by someone, disclaimer or not. If I hear an spot on radio, do I need a tag to understand it’s a paid political ad?

Why would I expect an online news site owner who requires/wants revenue to keep running not to accept money or copy from any party that wants to pay?  
One week Bourque runs headlines that are pro-Liberal, the next pro-Conservative, next week they could be pro-Green, pro-NDP, or anti everybody. I think people that use his site have figured out the bought/paid for part. 
If a site owner says they accept advertising, well, then what’s the fuss?

Top hyperlink on Bourque:  “Your ad here, contact Bourque Now”
What part of ’your ad’ excludes political parties or interest groups? How is this different than paying a PR wire?

Bourque is upfront about accepting advertising. If Jack’s Newswatch or National Newswatch want to run paid headlines, what’s the beef? 
Who cares, as long as a site owner says upfront (as Bourque does) they want them?

I think the beef is that the money spent on this advertising doesn’t have to be accounted for. I also think the beef is enforcers aren’t able to operate effectively online and enforce laws or regulations that may need to be changed to catch up to technology.
There is no election (federal elections cover a six week period once the writ is dropped) and this concern is about micro-managing at a level that is not micro-manageable.

This seems to be more a medium clash than an ethical one, as traditional media sees it’s audiences and forms of revenues changing.

Globe and Mail
CTV