Pseudo Journalism

Bloggers can't be journalists, in the proper sense of the word, which includes reporting, digging up news and verifying facts with interviews and requests for comments. Still, there's no reason not to behave like an ethical writer and follow the guidelines which news organisations follow, wherever possible.

In that pseudo journalistic spirit, I have sent emails to a trio of writers who are featured as exhibits in an article on writers' block. I'm hoping they'll reply, which will verify either my astounding intuition or my vivid imagination, depending on whether I'm right or wrong. That's a polite way of saying that I'm scared silly I'll be making an ass of myself, which I won't be if the writers reply back either confirming or denying my accusations. I'll scratch them out of the article, in all good faith, if they deny.

Good practise or chicken? You decide.

BTW, speaking about old vs. new media, "The California Supreme Court issued their ruling on Barrett v Rosenthal today which determined that web publishers are not liable for publishing material written by someone else and recovery for defamation must be sought from the original source only" according to www.blogher.com to which another female blogger, Michelle Malkin replies "Seems to me that some bloggers want to enjoy the benefits of MSM status (fighting for the same coverage as traditional journalists under shield laws, as in the Apple case), but avoid the consequences (getting sued if they re-publish defamatory material online)."

Also, a Kentucky lawyer who wants to blog about law comes up facing a unique problem. He needs to pay $50 to the "The Kentucky Attorney's Advertising Commission" every time he wants to make a post, because his posts and his blog are seen as "advertising for his practise". How about we apply this rule to all political blogs, huh?