Are you sure that old media isn't legally required to disclose when they have been paid to put up certain content? I am not. In fact, I think they probably are- why else would news magazines label those "infomercial" sections they sometimes print as advertising?
If you take money or free product to produce a blog post, you should disclose that fact. I hang out on some mommyblogs from time to time, and there was a big uproar on one blog over the fact that another blogger took money from 23andMe to post about her experiences with their community aimed at pregnant women and new moms. In her post, the second blogger included some statements of questionable scientific validity that, if made directly by 23andMe in their advertising, probably would have brought the FDA and the FTC down on them. But it is fine to spread this disinformation in a blogpost- reader beware, etc. The problem was, the second blogger did NOT disclose her relationship with 23andMe in the post itself, although apparently most of her regular readers were aware of the relationship.
So- should that be legal? What if someone read her scientifically questionable opinions and acted on them, resulting in injury or even death (the opinions dealt with preeclampsia, which can be quite serious)? Sure, they shouldn't have taken medical advice from a blog. But do the blog writer and her sponsors have some sort of legal requirement not to spread false/unproven info? Are you ready for pharma companies to use blogs as a way to make an end run around direct to consumer marketing restrictions?
I'm not saying that the FTC's proposed rule is perfect, or even right. But I do think there is more to it than you imply. Ethical breaches in the marketing of computers is maybe not a big deal worth of laws. Ethical breaches in the marketing of drugs and diagnostics are a different story.