The never-ending weblogs/journalism debate is continually perplexing. Why can't we just leave it at "weblogs can be journalism, but aren't inherently"?

Which would then help with the discussion about ethics and credibility. Random online diary weblogs are not going to be concerned as much with ethics and credibility as are journalistic or other professional weblogs. But as long as we're stuck in this asinine non-debate whose language keeps making it sound as if we're trying to decide whether or not all weblogs are journalism, we'll never really get around to properly discussing the ethics questions.

I agree that the weblog-journalism debate is a non-issue.

I guess the question I'd like to see discussed is do most weblogs even need to adhere to a standard of ethics?

Obviously if you lie and slander recklessly, that's a different issue. But the Web is a self healing organism and will clean itself of the outrageous stuff. Jaycee as the prime example (I'll have to think of some others).

But not being constrained to someone else's rules of editorial conduct is exactly why so many webloggers are evangelical about blogging.

Oh by the way, everybody go visit http://www.spartaneity.com/, another weblog weblog that I think I got some links from but neglected to link in my list. There's a mailing list you can subscribe to on weblog ethics.

Good post on the whole Heiferman-Corante metablogging thing too.

The matter of what "most weblogs" need or don't need first depends on whether there are more personal diary weblogs or more editorial commentary weblogs. It's probably safe to assume it's the former, and indeed that type doesn't really need to go beyond the personal ethics of each writer, since most of what they write is about themselves, their friends, and their family.

But when the matter of weblogs ethics comes up, it's usually in the context of the latter category, which tends to include more journalistic types, more professional outlooks. People for whom their writing matters on a basis substantially different than that of diary writers -- which is not to all meant to dismiss diary writers, merely distinguish them.

There is a category of weblog writer out there whose work is meant to communicate and influence on issues on a larger scale than what they had for breakfast or whether Jimmy asked them to the prom. When one is discussing their product line, or electoral politics, or the global threat of war... well, you begin to enter a new context.

In the end, it comes down to the intent of the blogger. If you want to be taken seriously, if you want credibility on the issues you discuss, then yes, you need to adopt a general set of ethical standards not dissimilar from those by which journalists are supposed to work.

Excellent points. For the most part I distinguish the personal diary, with an inward focus as a blog, and an editorial commentary with links, with an outward looking focus as a weblog.

I think as long as the intent is made clear, whether it be political, sales or whatever other goal an author might be out to attain, then the writer can write without a net. I should hope that personal publishers will always be accountable to the most powerful editor - the mass intellect of the Web.

Oops I did it again! - Brittney Spears TGP thumbnail gallery we live together welivetogether little trouble maker joey jenna big naturals in the vip latina hardcore movies solo video girl