PIECES ON BLOGS AND JOURNALISTIC ETHICS from AP and The Wall Street Journal.

SayUncle suggests that it might be ethical for journalists writing about blogs to link them. Then he codifies this as an ethical rule.

That’s reminiscent of something that James Lileks observed (and the link here is to a quote because his archives don’t seem to be working properly, which is kind of ironic):

A wire story consists of one voice pitched low and calm and full of institutional gravitas, blissfully unaware of its own biases or the gaping lacunae in its knowledge. Whereas blogs have a different format: Clever teaser headline that has little to do with the actual story, but sets the tone for this blog post. Breezy ad hominem slur containing the link to the entire story. Excerpt of said story, demonstrating its idiocy (or brilliance) Blogauthor’s remarks, varying from dismissive sniffs to a Tolstoi- length rebuttal. Seven comments from people piling on, disagreeing, adding a link, acting stupid, preaching to the choir, accusing choir of being Nazis, etc.

I’d say it’s a throwback to the old newspapers, the days when partisan slants covered everything from the play story to the radio listings, but this is different. The link changes everything. When someone derides or exalts a piece, the link lets you examine the thing itself without interference. TV can’t do that. Radio can’t do that. Newspapers and magazines don’t have the space. My time on the internet resembles eight hours at a coffeeshop stocked with every periodical in the world – if someone says “I read something stupid” or “there was this wonderful piece in the Atlantic” then conversation stops while you read the piece and make up your own mind.

Read the piece and make up your own mind. That’s what the link does, and it’s a big deal, something that journalistic accounts of blog ethics tend to ignore, and that journalistic practice tends to ignore, too.

UPDATE: Here’s the Lileks link in archival form, thanks to the Wayback Machine.