Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Well, you know how it is. We've been making it look easy for all these decades and now everyone with a keyboard thinks he can do it.
 

Allow me a moment of contrarianism. Bloggers are not journalists. Some journalists, however, are bloggers. Both write in public space. Therefore, journalists believe that the rules that apply to their particular craft should, must, and do apply to blogging. To "get it right", as you say ER.

I disagree with the basic premise. There are many styles of writing, journalistic among the rest. It is neither the best nor the worst. It is just a way to get from point A to point B as succinctly and fastidiously as possible. Nothing wrong with that. But, it is not the end-all and be-all of writing, nor should it be.

Blogging is a still-evolving art form, and is covers the gamut from fiction-writing to current affairs to daily diaries made public. To me, the issue of libel shouldn't even be an issue. I, for one, attempt to avoid the threat of lawsuit by keeping details - most particularly names - of those who have not given permission to have those details made public, out of my blog. This is personal preference, however, and is not nor should be construed as a rule, as how it should be "done right".

To me, it is done right if people respond. Do they respond critically to one's ideas? Do they respond enthusiastically to one's fearlessness? Do they respond with comments to one's thoughts on recipes, book or music reviews, video game hints, etc.? If one writes following the APA style manual, rather than that of the NYT, or the Chicago Manual rather than the Chicago Tribune Manual, well, that's the way it is.

While some journalists are bloggers, not all bloggers are journalists. That distinction is necessary.
 

Was working up to what Geoffrey said.... It's like one of those overlapping-circles dealies. (I know there's a name for them, but it's late afternoon on Friday and my brain has shut down).
 

I think the poitn, Geoffrey, is that bloggers "publish" their pieces on the Web, and the laws that are part of the society journalists have been associated with for so many years must, too, apply to blogging.

That's the reason behind this. Ignorance is no defense against libel and copyright infringement. Some people need to learn what they can and cannot do.

Style isn't the issue. While I, trained in journalism, might crinch at someone's word usage or misunderstanding of punctuation, it's not for me to edit their pieces to conform to journalistic style.

And I'll also disagree with Trixie. There's nothing about "us" making it look easy. It's just a trade we perform and try to perform to a top level.

There are plenty of talented reporters out there who can't write for a darn. There are plenty of wonderful authors who can't do the basic groundwork of reporting. It takes someone special to mold the two.

Truth is, I've read some blogs by non-journalists that are better at the combined talents of reporting/writing than those who have been daily, weekly or monthly for many years.
 

The article is about bloggers who aspire to be "citizen journalists," and who are going to journalists to find out how to "do it right." They're going to find out how to do journalism, that is how to access public records, do FOI requests as routinely as they brush their teeth, develop habits of thinking that make libel rare (it's wrong to libel whether or not one gets sued!), etc.

In that sense then, the sense of the article linked, there is a right way, or rights ways, to do it.

Not talking about style. Not talking about writing. Talking about reporting and communicating to a given, although fluid, audience -- which is journalism.
 

I read the article in question, and I maintain that the distinction still exists. Why "must" the laws apply equally to two very different areas of communication? The only reason I see for this is professional envy and spite on the part of journalists (while I recognize the host is one, as are several of his commenters, I mean no disrespect to them and would never accuse them of these sins).

Form follows function. A blog is not a news report. It may report news, but that doesn't make the person who wrote it a reporter.

Copyright infringement is something different altogether than I am speaking of here. As is libel, seditious and/or otherwise. It was my understanding that the "absence of malice" test still applied. In that case, it is almost impossible to legally libel someone, because one must prove some kind of prior intent which, in a digital age, is easily disposed of.

Anyway, I'm not disparaging journalists in favor of bloggers. I am only trying to point out the differences are numerable, important. I could call myself a male stripper, but that wouldn't make me a candidate for Chippendales. In the same way, calling oneself a "citizen journalist" doesn't make one such a creature.
 

Well, bloogs are digital versions of the pamphlet presses that abounded when libel law first was formulated in this country.

And, "A blog is not a news report. It may report news, but that doesn't make the person who wrote it a reporter." I totally disagree. Journalism, reporting, editing, etc., is not a profession. Anyone, lierally, can do it. Anyone who does it, whatever the form -- as long as it's published, which can mean anything from clicking on "submit," to making a single copy of a handwritten piece and handing it to another.

And, no, but "absence of malice" is not a defense against libel. The only firm defense -- and even it's not sure, since libel is a tort claim -- is "truth."

Criminal libel laws are a horse of a different color, though.
 

Point A: This blog can never be sued because nothing here is news or journalism or false.(it may not be true, but they believe it anyway)

Point B: 99%+ of blogs are really journals and contain mainly first hand information and uninformed opions even if they be skewed. So they aren't even in the game described in the article.

Point C: Sometimes it is a lose/lose game no matter who plays or where.

Point D: I was going to bring up "Absence of Malalice" as a principle but though better of it.

Point E: Shallow pockets have no return.

Point F: The average blog has 1.4 readers daily.
 

Re, "So they aren't even in the game described in the article"

Right.