In a huge legal precident that could have some immediate repercussions here in Virginia, Maryland’s highest court ruled that websites do not have to readily reveal anonymous commenters’ identities in defamation suits:

[T]he court used the case to recommend a strict, five-step process for judges to follow “to balance the First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet with the opportunity on the part of the object of that speech to seek judicial redress for alleged defamation.”

The process, which closely matches one set out by a New Jersey court in 2002, requires a plaintiff claiming defamation from an online comment to try to notify the anonymous poster that the person is the subject of a subpoena — including by posting a message on the relevant online message board.

The plaintiff must then identify in court filings the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster, as well as show how those comments have caused damage.

Maryland’s court also went further than New Jersey’s, adding that the plaintiff might have to provide specific evidence supporting each element of the defamation claim. Finally, it indicated that judges also have to balance the anonymous poster’s right of free speech against the need to disclose a defendant’s identity.

While that’s not the full question in play in Waldo Jaquith’s recent legal troubles it certainly is a large one as Thomas Garrett and his lawyers try to get information from Waldo about his commenters and their private information.  From the Motion To Compel:

[W]hile Virginia recognizes a qualified repotter’s privilege, see Brown v. Com., 214 Ya. 755,757 (1974), Mr. Jaquith has not introduced any evidence to prove that he is in fact a journalist. Since Mr. Jaquith asserts the privilege, he bears the burden of proving that the privilege applies to his communications. ,See Anderson v. Anderson,2g Ya. App. 673, 681-682 (1999) (“The party seeking to establish the existence of a privileged communication carries the burden of proof.”) Howevet, he has merely asserted “upon information and belief’ that the privilege applies (Mot. to Quash !f 4.), and has not offered any evidence in support of this assertion.

In any event, it seems unlikely that Mr. Jaquith would be able to carry his burden. Although it appears that no Virginia court has yet articulated a test for determining precisely who is a’Journalist” entitled to assert the qualified reporter’s privilege, cases from other jurisdictions have held that the law “does not grant status to any person with a manuscript, a web page or a frlm.” In re Madden, 751 F.3d 125, 129 (3d Cir. 1998). Nor does a person become a journalist merely by proclaiming that he or she is a journalist. Id. at 130. As one scholarly commentator has stated:

Any such self-proclaimed joumalist could unilaterally decide to place certain information offlimits simply by agreeing to promise confidentiality to a source. This would potentially exclude a huge amount of information from the legal system, and would result in substantial litigation costs as parties battled over the applicability of the virtually boundless privilege.

Randall D. Eliason, The Problems with the Reporter’s Privilege, 57 Am. U. L. Rev. 1341,1367 (2003). Nor is a person considered a journalist if he merely relies upon another party as his sole source of information, uncovers no story on his own, and does not independently investigate any of the information provided to him by that other party. Madden,151 F.3d at 130. lvfu. Jaquith therefore cannot benefit from the qualified reporter’s privilege inasmuch as the Article contains no information arising from his own investigative reporting but instead simply recites information provided or uncovered by others, including information provided by The Hook.

So even journalists can’t call themselves journalists if they cite sources that are not their own. Good to know.

So the question becomes how does one qualify as a “journalist”?  Must they be card carrying?  Is there a decoder ring? Do websites not qualify as a news medium and therefore anyone working specifically on a blog does not qualify as a journalist?

And, if Waldo was unoriginal in his posting of this information, then why chase after him or his commenters?  How is posting this story any different than a man telling the story in a bar, to which the crowd reacts in one fashion or another?  Are you going to subpoena drinking buddies next?

Beyond that, it’s a question of free speech and association, another point argued against when Waldo refuses to release IP information of commenters.  What Garrett’s lawyers argue is that some speech and association is more free than others:

In opposition to this request, Mr. Jaquith argues frst that these documents should not be disclosed because to do so would “threaten the exercise of fundamental rights” of the commenters, namely, their First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the internet, and that therefore the Subpoena “is subject to the closest scrutiny.” (Mot. to Quash fl 5.) However, the precedents cited by Mr. Jaquith in support of this position dealt with far more weighty constitutional matters than those at issue here. In bothNAACP v. Alabama,357 U.S.449 (1958) and Bates v. City of Little Rock,361 U.S. 516 (1960), governments in the former Confederacy had sought to compel units of the NAACP to disclose their membership lists, thus threatening members’ exercise of their First Amendment rights of free association, and perhaps even threatening their lives. The standard of “closest scrutiny” (sometimes referred to as “exacting scrutiny”) applied in those cases applies to speech only when it touches on prime matters of public political life, such as debate over the qualifications of candidates, discussion of governmental or political affairs, discussion of political campaigns, and advocacy of controversial points of view, in which case such speech is described as the “core” or “essence” of the First Amendment. See generally Mclntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n,514 U.S. 334, 346-347 (1995) (“When a law burdens core political speech, we apply ‘exacting scrutiny”‘).  By contrast, the comments posted on Mr. Jaquith’s article are almost uniformly tawdry, sophomoric, and spiteful, and touch upon no issues of public or political interest that constitute the “core” of the First Amendment, such as those at issue in NAACP and Bates. (See generally Exhibit 2.)

But clearly these comments are “controversial points of view” toward Garrett. So, protected.  And, as Waldo points out:

The enormous irony is here is that the comments that fit that description were posted by Garrett himself (or, at least, somebody who says that he’s Garrett and demonstrates an extraordinary amount of knowledge about the man), all of which were pretty nasty attacks on me, libelously accusing me of committing criminal acts. And in an effort to claim that I have contempt for the legal process (as a reader of my blog, you understand that precisely the opposite is true), Garrett’s attorney cites a comment left by James Young, in which he recites a joke about judges told to him by a judge. (James, as you may know, is an attorney who recently argued a case before the Supreme Court.)

Clearly what we’re seeing here is an attempt by an individual to squash any negative remarks about him and his character.  The argument seems less to be about the merrits of the comments and more about the rights of individuals to express them, at least where Waldo is involved.

The precident that Garrett and his attorneys are seeking to set here is a dangerous one and could very well harm the ability for bloggers who take what they do seriously continue to do so.  This could be a huge setback given the gains bloggers have made in being accepted and respected as members of the “press” throughout the state.  To segregate that playing field, to create a situation where some have more rights than others merely because you think you can bully an individual who has no corporate sponsor or means to pay for a high end legal defense, well, that says a lot more about you as an individual than any article on The Hook or repeated by any blogger.

Andrew Keen, author of Cult of the Amateur and previously mentioned on J’s Notes here, here and here, argues that Obama’s plan to provide all American’s broadband internet access could be very dangerous:

Imagine if today’s radically unregulated Internet, with its absence of fact checkers and editorial gatekeepers, had existed back then (in the 1930s). Imagine that universal broadband had been available to enable the unemployed to read the latest conspiracy theories about the Great Crash on the blogosphere. Imagine the FDR-baiting, Hitler-loving Father Charles Coughlin, equipped with his “personalized” YouTube channel, able, at a click of a button, to distribute his racist message to the suffering masses. Or imagine a marketing genius like the Nazi chief propagandist Josef Goebbels managing a viral social network of anti-Semites which could coordinate local meet-ups to assault Jews and Communists.

Keen sees parallels between the economic situation faced by the world and particularly Germany in the 1920s-30s and today.

The question is: In our democratized world of individual empowerment, how will the newly unemployed millions, the victims of the meltdown, react to their economic disempowerment? In a culture that prioritizes the personal, how will the masses vent their rage against a system that no longer personally works for them?

Keen displays a complete lack of faith not only in individuals to make right and rational decisions, but also in communities to do the same.  But this also smacks of a fear from those in power in empowering those without power, an argument that has been made against Keen for a while as he has argued that there is a need for “gatekeepers” for information.  When gatekeepers merely fact check this is not a problem. But if they seek to limit access to information, you deny people the right to be fully informed (or even mis-informed, such is life).

The largest issue here is the fact that access to broadband internet is already available – at a price.

Keen’s argument steers away from mere access to information to questioning the ability of entire classes of individuals to properly filter that information.  Broadband access by those that can afford it in New York or San Francisco is OK, but broadband access by those who currently can’t affort it in Nebraska or Arkansas is dangerous?

His examples are also faulty:

For another sneak preview of digital fascism, it’s worth looking at South Korea, another country with universal broadband infrastructure. In April, the new democratically elected South Korean President, Lee Myung Bak lifted a ban on imported American beef. This resulted in an eruption of anger on the Internet—first amongst teenage girls, then on the popular online portal Daum, and finally through teenage “citizen journalists” on blogs, videocasts, and social networks. The rumor spread that all the American beef was tainted with mad cow disease and an online petition for Lee’s impeachment got 1.3 million signatures in a week. And for an even more real-time example of digital fascism, take a look at the way in which this week’s raging anti government violence in Greece by the young and unemployed (already at over 9% in the Greek economy) has been coordinated by Facebook, Twitter and other viral digital networks.

In the South Korean example Keen ignores assorted pro-business reforms that Lee instituted and fed into this movement and huge protests as well.  This also shines a light on the inability of the South Korean government to properly inform and educate the populace with an alternate message.  In Greece, you’re looking at a simmering situation that reached a boiling point that, yes, was able to use the internet to coordinate, but lack of access to these services would not guarantee that this movement would not have happened.

As a counter to Keen: Just imagine what more Paul Revere could have done if he’d had Twitter and Facebook.

You do not empower and better a society by limiting it’s access to information.  By opening up the Internet, you allow people not just to find more information on what they already believe or what to hear (Cass Sunstein’s “Daily Me”) but also opens the door to the opposing viewpoint.

Certainly there is an argument to be made as to whether or not it is the responsibility of the government to provide broadband access when the free market is perfectly capable of determining it’s demand and production, but that argument can not be made on fear mongering based on elitism and a desire to keep the masses uninformed.

UPDATE: Another counterpoint, when accepting the Nobel Prize this past December, Jean-Marie Gustave said:

‘Who knows, if the Internet had existed at the time, perhaps Hitler’s criminal plot would not have succeeded – ridicule might have prevented it from ever seeing the light of day,’ he said.

Kottke applies the “broken window theory” to websites:

Much of the tone of discourse online is governed by the level of moderation and to what extent people are encouraged to “own” their words. When forums, message boards, and blog comment threads with more than a handful of participants are unmoderated, bad behavior follows. The appearance of one troll encourages others. Undeleted hateful or ad hominem comments are an indication that that sort of thing is allowable behavior and encourages more of the same. Those commenters who are normally respectable participants are emboldened by the uptick in bad behavior and misbehave themselves. More likely, they’re discouraged from helping with the community moderation process of keeping their peers in line with social pressure. Or they stop visiting the site altogether.

Unchecked comment spam signals that the owner/moderator of the forum or blog isn’t paying attention, stimulating further improper conduct. Anonymity provides commenters with immunity from being associated with their speech and actions, making the whole situation worse…how does the community punish or police someone they don’t know?

Bad envionments lead to bad habits which encourage more and more of the same.

Eric Fehrnstrom gives an account of what Republican candidates faced from netroots activists in 2008 and in closing asks:

Where are the online gatekeepers? Gatekeeping is the most important function for the offline media. Editors decide which stories get published. They make sure rumors aren’t printed. Sensitive information is double- and sometimes triple-sourced. Gatekeeping serves an important purpose in establishing the ethics of journalism. Sadly, it doesn’t exist on the Web.

What can be done? Citizen-journalists and bloggers need to provide links to websites that contain factual data backing up their assertions. These connections add credibility. And while Internet libel suits can be difficult to win, they should be pursued more often.

Moreover, it would help if TV and newspapers resisted the temptation to get edgier in their own reporting. If you can’t be “first” with the rumors, be first with the most comprehensive and factual account. In the current Wild West state of political reporting, you will be rewarded with loyal readership in search of honest and objective coverage.

He’s not entirely wrong, though I think it’s naive to believe that many bloggers and other citizen-journalists will put forth that extra effort to confirm the facts of what they’re writing before the jump.  And that no one expects it from the other side means they won’t raise themselves up to provide it on their side.  Fire with fire.  But we have got to break from that mold.

As the internet comes of age in how its used during campaigns, more and more people are going to be asking the same question though: where are the gatekeepers?  What has gotten blogging and online activism this far is the lack of a gatekeeper – thousands of voices shouting so many things that once in a while one sticks.  Or a bunch of people starting to talk about the same thing, creating a story where there wouldn’t be one normally.

The media has proven to be gullible to these tactics.  But they’re starting to get burned, and a lot of blogging talking heads who try to sound and act professional but end up putting their foot in their mouth are going to find themselves locked out.

Since blogging’s not about to go away, gatekeepers will emerge as people realize who make up the cream of the crop and those people are promoted.  These individuals will be the self-policiers who put function before form and seek out the facts before fame.

This may take time, though.  Blogging is still new in terms of impact on media and elections.  Everyone is still getting a feel for how it works and what place citizen-jouralists hold in the conversation.

It’s up to the citizen-journalist to help properly define their role, not by words but by acts.

Publish2 has a post up about the rumored heart attack suffered by Steve Jobs and how CNN’s iReport and other citizen journalism outlets can be gamed and hurt the credibility of all:

When we first conceived of Publish2 as a platform exclusively for journalists, we worried that we would take a lot of flack for trying to define who a journalist is at a time when that definition is expanding. But we realized that our “velvet rope” is really about what we want to keep OUT, i.e. covert PR, undisclosed marketing, and SPAM. That’s why rather than a definition we opted for a set of editorial standards.

The issue with citizen journalism is not about who is qualified or smart enough to be a journalist. It’s about TRUST and TRANSPARENCY. It may not be brain surgery, but (dis)information in the wrong hands does have the potential to do real harm. There’s a reason why journalism has developed standards for reporting, sourcing, fact checking, and accuracy.

It’s because these standards protect people.

The same applies not only to open systems like CNN’s iReport or Digg but blogging in general.  Anyone can do it and anyone can create an aura of credibility under a false name and false pretenses with the intent of gaming the system and ultimately harming someone or a cause.  Trust and transparency are key to legitimatizing a forum, but it’s going to take a lot of gatekeeping and cleaning up to ensure the cream rises to the top.

Over at Social Media Today, Matt Rhodes found a recent judgment that muddies the water on whether online defamation is slander or libel:

To date it has been thought that defamatory comments in online communities, bulletin boards and other chat on the internet are libel. They are published and a permanent record is kept. That’s why I was intrigued to read a report in OutLaw today of a recent judgement that took the opposing view.

Here’s the comments from Mr Justice Eady who tried the case:

“[Bulletin board posts] are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out,” he said in his ruling. “Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or ‘give and take’.”

“When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions,” said the ruling. “People do not often take a ‘thread’ and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it.”

The facts of the case are complex and involve multiple parties, so I’d recommend reading the full background on OutLaw here.

Personally, I understand that the difference matters in a legal sense but many times someone accuse of slander counters with “it’s not slander online, it’s libel, so nyah!” and the proceeds to act as if they won the argument when the problem of defamation remains unsolved.  But it’s interesting to see a legal precedent and what that might mean for online conversations.

Doug over at Below the Beltway has a good roundup of what’s really going on with the Associated Press’s “attack” on blogs and fair use.

Oh, look, another blogging ethics kick.  But I’ll keep it brief.

I can understand people surfing the web using proxy services.  Don’t want folks to know what you’re doing and all that, that’s fine, privacy rules.  But commenting by proxy just stinks to high heaven.

J’s Notes will not allow proxy comments.  I’m sorry.  You can comment anonymously, that’s fine, but if you use a proxy, you’re hiding a little too much and I won’t have it here.

Just as blog posting should be above the board, so should comments.  Those participating in the conversation should be honest if they hope to be heard.

Scott White asks bloggers: how far are you willing to go for full disclosure? The question is important and reminds me that I have no disclaimer here on J’s Notes, even though the issue has come up in the past during conversations I’ve had with others.

Scott uses Mitch Radcliffe’s ZDNet disclosure as an example of a lot of information and maybe too much. Though maybe it isn’t, considering that bloggers at ZDNet may find themselves blogging about any number of things which Radcliffe might be involved in. So while intensive, Radcliffe’s disclosure is exactly the type of stuff he needs to reveal if folks are going to take him and his blogging seriously.

In Scott’s case, a short and sweet disclosure is all he needs since he probably won’t find himself blogging about a business he may have investments in or about any number of things he may have a personal vested interest in. Aside from his own politics, which he defines just fine.

This connects directly with a blogger giving his audience enough information to be able to evaluate the source. If people are going to trust the blogger and his information, they should probably know if the blogger has any vested interest in what they’re talking about. Or whether or not this opinion is their own or the product of a paycheck or other outside influence.

How much one says in such a disclaimer is up to the blogger and the subject matter they find themselves discussing. For many there are ways to be brief instead of posting a full resume that simply acts to show off, but for others you may find a disclosure the length of your arm in order to be all encompassing.

In the case of J’s Notes, it doesn’t have to be much:

Any opinions or information on J’s Notes reflects the opinions and thoughts of Jason Kenney and do not necessarily represent the opinions or or official policies of RedStormPAC or WVCW.

What more do you need?

4:50 p.m. NOTE: After receiving notification from readers seeking some clarification I realize that this post might be a whole lot vague.  For starters, this is concerning a pseudonymous political blog.  I do know what blog is being discussed but want to avoid naming names as everyone else has.  That said, I think by reading Jane’s original post you can get a feel for the gist of the site being discussed as it fits a certain “type” of blog that I’m trying to address generally.  What I see at issue here is pseudonymous blogging and how it creates an ethical dilemma for bloggers and blog readers.  This applies beyond political blogs and continues on a thread I’ve harped on quite a few times in the past: ethical blogging.  I’m sorry if my original post and title misled anyone or brought folks here through what may appear as less than honest means.  If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me directly.

No one’s naming names, but Jane at Conservativa has gotten the ball rolling on wondering about the face(s) behind a blog that’s relatively new to the Virginia Blogosphere:

1. The visual format is standard/well-done. No rookie mistakes at all. But also no graphics, photos, etc. to lend personality.
2. Writing quality overall too good to be from an inexperienced writer.
3. Overall tone of the writing: uneven. Mostly boilerplate, but then it flares into mini-rants.
4. Peculiar set of RSS feeds and links in the blogroll. Indicative of a wish to get read and get links in return, rather than expressive of a person with a point of view.
5. It has been up and running less than a year.
6. The author is pseudonymous.

(There’s one more thing which I have not listed, and it’s the real giveaway). The presence of all these things together sets off my B.S. detector.

Scott, Jim Hoeft and Jim Riley all have brief takes as well.

Now, while there shouldn’t be any blogging police asking for a new blogger’s papers, this issue is quite vital to the future of the blogosphere.

Transparency.

There are times when writing under a pseudonym is necessary and makes sense: whistle blowing, impact on employment/day-to-day livelihood, etc. But blogging under a pen name should also be greeted by bloggers and readers alike with a certain level of suspicion. Especially when the blogger comes out the gate appearing to want the widest audience possible with only the slightest hint of actual substance on who is really behind the blog.

The problem with this type of blogging is how the rest of the world perceives it. Many people who don’t regularly do blogs don’t know what to make of a pseudonymous site. Many actually accept this as the norm, and dismiss blogging as a result. Others rely on it too much, which then allows the author to be less than honest in their purpose, creating stories and the perception of actual news where there otherwise might be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from creating a blog under a false name and stating an outright lie. There is nothing preventing that same person from creating five other blogs under other false names that repeat this lie, that comment on the site to make it seem like this lie has feet, that sock puppet with one another to give the perception of meat when there’s nothing there.

Not that this level of abuse has been seen (yet), but this is the snowball the blogosphere faces if it does not question its sources, whether they be other blogs or anonymous e-mails that pop up in the inbox.

Pseudonymous blogging has its place, and many pseudonymous bloggers have been somewhat successful, establishing themselves either through their reasoned work on their blogs or the poorly kept secret of their real name. But look across the Virginia blogosphere and you’ll see the large number of bloggers who started under a pseudonym and now blog under their real name. Transparency has won out because we’ve been able to assess them, evaluate them, criticize them, and ultimately welcome them into our circles. Even blogging by elected officials and campaigns has been welcomed.

But a healthy dose of skepticism is bound to great new pseudonymous bloggers and rightfully so. A lot of the Virginia political blogosphere is built on a two-way street paved in trust and respect. You have to earn your pen name. You have to earn our trust. And you have to be honest with us so we can do that.

Too many of us take this blogging thing way too seriously to willingly allow it to be abused for short term political gain.

First, my apologies to Preston Yancy for if it appears as if I’m piling on him.  I’m not, you just happened to make a post that re-inspired my thoughts on this matter.

Every now and then the blogosphere seems to be faced with a question on commenting and the responsibilities of a blogger to his readership wishing to do so.  Most recently, Preston Yancy has called on Don Harrison and Jon Baliles to allow comments on their websites.  Yancy both makes and breaks his argument with the following comment:

That is interesting since Harrison was critical of the School Board; because, the public could not speak at the meeting.

Ahem.

Blogs are not meetings that are open to the public.  Nor are individual blogs public forums.  Blogs are one man soapboxes that sometimes allow comments from the peanut gallery but have every right to limit those comments.

I have in the past been accused of “censoring” comments on my website.  While any instance of this has been an oversite and I strive to allow all people to speak on J’s Notes, the only individual with unlimited free speech  in the People’s Democratic Republic Of Jason is, well, me, Jason.  (And maybe my mother.)  This is my website.  I am under absolutely no obligation to provide a voice on this site to anyone other than myself.

And neither are Don or Jon.  (Can I just call them Don Jon collectively?  Would they beat me up for that?)

So how is one to respond?  Well, you can e-mail them directly or, as Yancy has done, create your own blog and enter the conversation. Because that’s what blogs are, conversations.  And if you truly feel so strongly on an issue, why allow your thoughts to be buried in the comments section of a post at someone else’s site when you can put it up front and center on your own?  Like I’m doing here with this topic.

You wouldn’t dare to tell people what to write on their sites.  Why would you assume to tell them to let you write on their site?

David Hazinski calls on traditional media to regulate it’s “citizen journalism” content:

Having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It’s just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere.

Journalism organizations should head that off. Citizen reports can be a valuable addition to news and information flow with some protections:

• Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.

• They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning.

• Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff’s auxiliaries are trained and certified.

The first point should be a given.  That traditional media would run with a random story fed to it by a “citizen journalist” without trying to back it up is reckless and completely erodes any confidence the public should have in that outlet.

The second point is a bit tricky as media continues to be market driven in that it’s a for-profit enterprise that relies on sucking in consumers.  To do this many outlets may find themselves going out on a limb on things, using and adage that it’s better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission and correcting themselves should they screw up.  Aside from that, most traditional media outlets would already assert that follow and enforce standards for their content.  Having them do so yet again won’t solve anything.

The third point, while interesting and worthwhile, is another unenforceable tactic that simply attempts to turn “citizen journalists” into “journalists”.  Yet courses would most appeal to those citizen journalists who are already trying to be ethical in their work and understand that there is a responsibility that comes with journalism.  The splash-and-trash elements that still dominate some areas of citizen journalism would continue to do business as usual.  It’s the same flaw with trying to create or enforce any Code of Ethics among bloggers: only those who are already trying to follow such a code will sign on, those who do not won’t.

Josh Wolf has more over at CNET News.

12:25pm Update: Style Weekly editor Jason Roop responds in the comments and clears some things up.

Yesterday John Sarvay noted that Style Weekly has changed their content management set up to where he can’t find Style’s stories a day before the issue hits the stands. To do this, Style hired Copeland Casati Media to do the technical grunt work. (Copeland guys, what’s the point in the “splash” page that is all puny but doesn’t really tell anyone anything about your site other than “humor”? Do ya really need it?)

Now I can’t fault Style Weekly for wanting to keep people from getting a sneak peek at their super top secret content. Who wants prior discussion of issues that creates hype and an interest in content and maybe makes people who otherwise wouldn’t care pick up an issue of Style Weekly? And I’m certainly not about to fault Copeland for taking pride in their work. Good job locking web surfers out. Kudos.

So is it really necessary to go and then harass a blogger for loving Richmond and wanting to highlight Style Weekly’s take? Tossing around accusations of stealing when all that’s happening is a quoting and linking to content freely available on the web is pretty gutsy. But it also shows just a wee lack of understanding about the way the web works. Which isn’t good for a company that specializes in, oh, web media and presentation. Maybe Copeland’s enthusiasm for their work and their clients is a selling point, but this is the type of thing that really could rub any number of readers and potential clients the wrong way.

Oh, boy, is there a throwdown happening at Ben Tribbett’s blog Not Larry Sabato! Ben Tribbett started it by having the balls to attempt to call out Washington Post’s Tim Craig for supposedly failing to cite a blog source:

Lowell had a great scoop earlier that Mark Warner’s primary challenger has a criminal record. I’m not even mentioning the guy by name- I don’t think he will make the ballot, and isn’t even worth a mention.

Anyway, right away Tim Craigs teals Lowell’s scoop and runs an item on the new WaPo blog.

Did Tim Craig not attend journalism school? Does he not have a ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY to site the published sources???? What a bunch of crap.

First, Ben Tribbett makes the huge assumption that Tim Craig found this via Raising Kaine. Someone signing their name as Tim Craig responded in the comments:

I did not get it from Raising Kaine. I got a clip of the Roanoke Times article emailed to me this afternoon from a Democratic source. I then had our Washington Post researchers independently verify the article through a search of court records After that, I called the gentleman in question to speak to him. I did scan Raising Kaine at one point this afternoon and never saw a headline about this matter.

As for you assertion, it is laughable for you to lecture me or any member of the Richmond press corps on journalistic ethics.

Oh SNAP!  Ben Tribbett then continues to whine that Tim Craig has never cited a Virginia blog on his blog posts.  Which leads to Ben’s second assumption and one that happens throughout the blogosphere.

While it is considered the polite and proper thing to do, bloggers are under no real obligation to cite their sources for their posts.  None at all.  And while this gray area might get a bit blurry when media outlets enter the blogosphere, they aren’t under any greater obligation than anyone else.  Especially if they end up doing the grunt work of verifying the tip, whether that tip came from a concerned reader, a blogger, or the man in the moon.

If someone finds something on my site and shares through theirs, do they owe me credit or a finder’s fee?  I guess if I had a ego that needed a bit of a stroke I could get upset about it, but with the way blogs work and the viral method of the spreading of information, it’s really hard to hold people on citations.  If I find something interesting on another blog that they found on another site that they found on yet another site, where do I give the credit?  To the place I found it?  To the real source?  And what’s to say I didn’t find it through some other means?

This is especially hard to hold people to when it comes to political blogging and the mainstream media.  The mainstream media may find something out the same time as or even before a blog, but because of their own guidelines and ethics, they have to do a bit of research to verify information.  Blogs by and large fail to do that, so if they get what looks to be an amazing scoop it’s up right away, truth and fact-checking be damned.  Hell, the majority of the time blogs fail to correct their own errors (something Ben Tribbett has NEVER done).

So folks need to hold up a bit before tossing ethical hand grenades (especially Ben Tribbett).  If you feel that a citation was missed or a blog has provided an insight that someone has missed, there are usually comment sections where you can add your own words.  Of you have your own blog where you can write and link around and do whatever corrections to the record you feel you need to do.

But if you’re going to go out on a limb and try and call someone out on ethical blogging you may want to first make sure you have some ground to stand on, whether that’s by checking your facts before making the accusation or just making sure you have any room to speak on ethics in blogging.