Flutterby™! : Bloggers as journalists

Meta-blogging usually bores me, but today when John Hiler asks "Are Bloggers Journalists?", my feathers got ruffled. My response in general has been "no, and thank the deities for that!" He uses as an example his piece on "Google Bombs", which got mangled into the BBC abomination "Google hit by link bombers". A short pause here while we remember who the professional journalists are. He then goes on to link to a whole bunch of codes of ethics of various professional journalism organizations. I'll bet that on any given day I can disqualify at least one piece in the New York Times or the Washington Post under at least half of the terms laid out in those standards.

Yes, sometimes personal publishers don't track down all sides to the story, but don't go spreading this bullshit attitude that somehow the professionals are doing anything better than we, collectively, are. Remember, somewhere there's a terrorist or a drug kingpin reading the paper saying "This technology article is really interesting and full of facts."

Reading further, he proposes a blogging code of ethics that I think are rules that we should assume is what everyone is publishing under:

1. Amateur Journalists are inherently biased.
2. Caveats are critical online.
3. Blogging doesn't magically make you immune from Libel and Slander.

To which I would add:

4. The only difference between a weblogger and a professional journalist is that they're willing to make pests of themselves and track down original sources. As a personal publisher, you should be prepared to do the same.