My argument is this: If bloggers don't have the right to be anonymous, then journalists don't have the right to cite anonymous sources.

Mitch asked "To what standard should bloggers be held to which they are not already held?"
The only standard I apply to a blog is "Is it interesting?". I'm not going to visit a blog about the joys of scrapbooking or Indian sandpainting.
The same standard applies to the Star Tribune. I know from experience that it is a biased news source. But unlike most blogs it pretends it is not, hence I shun it.
Blogs are a great experiment in the blending of free speech and commerce. It's no wonder that those who love regulation are horrified by this new phenomenon.
I say if you want gatekeepers, fine. Buy your own damn fence.

Ryan,
I like the way you think!

I'm beginning to call the whole issue Blois and His Underwhelming Monochromatic Lawsuit.

Kermit said: "Blogs are a great experiment in the blending of free speech and commerce."

Don't forget the horseshit! No recipe for a blog is complete without a heaping tablespoon of horseshit!

What do you get when you mix a heaping tablespoon of shit into a gallon of ice cream?

A gallon of shit.

Standards? What standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards!!

If you're concerned about horseshit in blogs, I have news for ya; the mainstream media has its own heaping pile of horseshit for you to consume.

At least blogs admit to the horseshit.

Ryan, meet Angryclown, reporter.

Clown, meet Ryan, former reporter.

Discuss.

Ohhhhhhhh, that explains a LOT.

Cynical, half-informed, self-important, convinced of my own intellectual superiority even on topics I was totally clueless about, biased without realizing it, crafting stories unwittingly laden with my own (at the time) liberal leanings. I remember those days. Good times. Good times. I would never go back if I can avoid it, but good times.

Let me guess, Clown, you're still determined to "make a difference," too? That's so cute.

It explains PLENTY!
I thought his behavior was explained by his being a lawyer... now that I know he's a reporter I almost feel bad for thinking he was a lawyer.

As a former news producer (admittedly from a shoe-string operation operated like a red-headed stepchild by the Hubbard Empire) I'm just going to smirk at my favorite second-stage syphalitic symptom.

Ryan guessed: "Let me guess, Clown, you're still determined to "make a difference," too? That's so cute."

Angryclown? Strictly a divider, not a uniter.

Held to standards by whom? To whose standards? I'd appreciate it if newspapers would come up to our standards. Why should we lower ourselves to theirs? If one of the journalistic standards is parroting from both sides, irrespective of ideas, argument, reason, facts or context, if 'that' is the 'news', I'll keep the standards I have. Aristotle beats Hearst anyday.

What's lower than a Lawyer? A reporter!

That's funny because it's so true. At least your lawyer went to law school and tries to do something. A reporter spreads gossip and gets pissy when asked about his bias.

Next, Used Car Salesman vs. reporter?

Actually Meeyotch, the words you put into my mouth are completely false, I did not EVER say that blogs should be held to any standard, I said the media is held to a different standard. You claim blogs are (defacto) media but then post this asking if blogs should be held to the standards of media, so which are they Mitch, media or not? You fail to make sense.

Also I said that if Blogs become and act like commercial entities, then their activities should be constrained, just like commercial entities, and if they want to pretend to be media, then they should be held to the same standards as media - i.e. having greater risk of claims of negligent acts and harm than joe average, but I did not said they should, when as a private citizen, be held to ANY standards above what a private citizen is held to.

Oh, one minor point, suggesting that instant fact checking somehow holds blogs to a "higher" standard is laughable and untrue on it's face.

First, any comment here isn't seen by anyone who doesn't drill into the replies, and given the routine pattern of flame and juvenile insult your sychophants normally employ, any post pointing out your foolishness is normally drowned out by cries of "traitor", "idiot", or other exciting and respectful comments from my christian brothers.

Second, many blogs don't allow for comments

Third, since many blogs are merely echo chambers for each other, the facts get repeated enough that some folks begin to accept them because of their ubiquitousness.

Fourth, most blogs only use snipits of details, and then post flaming, hate-filled opinion, hardly facts, and certainly not worth refuting (I would put your normal post in this category). They twist partial statements that they cull into whatever they want them to mean.

Fifth and finally, the fact is, most blogs have so little reach, they cause no harm, so no lawyer will file suit because no real damage occurs (One of the standards for slander or libel). The only concern really is whether it's a private citizen in fact, rather than just as asserted, and whether it represents an organized political smear.

I have no idea, nor do I care about Blios' case, but if he is filing suit to ascertain the identity of the blogger, or determine if a coordinated effort to defame him exists, well you know, that's just proving the system works.

PeanutButter

oh.. to test your theory of fact-checking.

Mitch predicted that the war in Iraq would be largely over in a year, a prediction made in August of 2005. Further, that it would be essentially a complete victory by that point in time.

As a counter to that:
http://ssp.georgetown.edu/documents/BymanFiveBadOptions.pdf

Now, of course, neither Mitch's ludicrous prediction, nor this man's paper are "facts", but one has the advantage of actually presenting reasoned opinion, versus polly-anna, unsubstantiatable nonsense. Read the paper, it's not rosey-sky, happy-land, and it may be wrong in parts and probably is, but it comes closer to "fact" than the tripe this blog trowels out.

So, I guess my thought is your standards essentially are precisely equal to the standards your readership holds you to. Given the average post here, that would be somewhere north of the absolute temperature of space, and the freezing point of nitrogen, but again, I don't advocate any "standards" for private speech, as long as it is, in fact, private.

"If you love your country, is it wrong to protest torture in time of war?"

"If you love your country, does that mean when you are constantly trying to change it and roll back laws, you actually 'hate' it?"

I'm confused, what would the difference be...one criticizes immorality, the other, seemingly does the same thing, oh, that's right, the difference is that the latter folks say "oh but that's different."

Confused

Uncle Junior from The Sopranos:
"Who's speaking? Is somebody speaking?"

Angryclown bragged: "Angryclown? Strictly a divider, not a uniter."

I disagree. You've managed to unite everyone reading this blog.

I wish I could claim credit for that, Kerm. But it's the slavering worship of authority that really seems to unite all of you. And the cold midwestern state thing.

angryclown just showed the true nature of a liberal with these words: "....the slavering worship of authority ...". Spoken like the adolescent-rebelling-against-daddy that they all are. Think of any issue, think of the leftist position and response to it and BINGO.

And the cold midwestern state thing?

It was 43 with light rain yesterday. Ain't global warming great?

Hey Colleen: pull my finger.

Kerm: Totally with you on the global warming.

"Fifth and finally, the fact is, most blogs have so little reach, they cause no harm, so no lawyer will file suit because no real damage occurs"

I think Dan Rather and Mary Mapes would take issue with this statement.

But that's ok, just keep your head buried in the sand. You will have less reach, will cause no harm, and no real damage will occur that way.

"I think Dan Rather and Mary Mapes would take issue with this statement."

You make your bed, you lay in it. Or is it lie? Lie fits better (fake but accurate).

"But it's the slavering worship of authority that really seems to unite all of you. "

Yeah, all those conservatives authority-whores like our mutual friend in a south FLA AUSA's office...

[Peter Griffin]...oh, crap. [/Griffin]

Never mind.

Spam whores again, huh?