What is Ethical Blogging??

God Save Va has a great post up called “What Is Ethical Blogging,” Asking

“What does “ethical blogging” mean to you? What does it entail? Does it even matter?”

It seems Virginia Oddsmaker has a bit of the same question.
I also noticed that Whackette of ,The Daily Whackjob has the "Ten commandments of blogging" (I also noticed all eleven of them)

First off, Yes, it does matter, greatly!

Ethical Blogging is being able to remember Chivalry, an ancient art that knights swore to before ever being able to be knighted, it was the “fair conduct” of war, I admit that each of us has our opinions, which is what makes the blogosphere so amazing, if we all agreed we would have nothing to debate or to talk about. Blogging would become boring rather quickly. In medieval times a knight had to swear to certain rules, many of which still apply today, and some even apply to blogging ethics, such as,

· Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

· Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.

· Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

· Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.

- Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

- virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.

Blogging Ethics, is all about treating other bloggers the way you desire to be treated…Regardless of there political affiliation, look at "The Daily Whackjob", it has several members, ranging from “Flaming Liberal”, “Religious Conservative”, Moderate, Libertarian…and they can still get along, on one blog. It is cause they understand that there opinions are not more important then the people they interact with. If there were more people willing to have real debate then our blogosphere would be in a much better place, heck, our country would be in a much better place.

Both the owner and the reader have a responsibility to each other, this is cordiality or at the very least civility, we can treat each other civilly, so lets do it!

Read more!

Republitarian, the swac bloggers better be happy...

It seems that STD, and other Swac bloggers will not rest until I do a post about Republitarian and his accusations about Sayre’s wife during the primary. Honestly I don’t have a problem with the fact that he attacked Sayre’s wife, what he reported was facts, Sayre’s wife did receive a DUI.

My issue begins with his intentions. It does not seem Republitarian had any great love for Emmett Hanger, Republitarian had a grudge against a group of bloggers from the Swac region. Seems like nothing more then a vendetta that turned nasty. I strongly question the relevance the DUI’s had to do with the Campaign at hand, but the Campaign is over, so those questions will have to just remain unanswered. Whether it is ethical or not, I am not really sure, it seems unethical to bring it up when it had no relevance, yet seemed ethical in the sense that it was factual information. Whether it mattered or not in the election is a mute point…Republitarian did it to “get back” at some bloggers, just to piss them off.

(can I say piss, and be ethical? The Bible says it, pisseth: 1 Samuel 25:22, 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21, 2 Kings 9:8, and the word piss: 2 Kings 18:27, 1 Samuel 36:12)

but I digress,

he did not release the information out of good intent for the voters, or even in support of “his” candidate, he did it only for shock value of a certain group of bloggers, and he succeeded…he also may have succeeded in making our blogosphere a little less civil.

But on a happier note Republitarian is commended for "giving credit where credit is due"
, so Republitarian receives a five on our Richter scale of ethical behavior, he acted like a little child in his “flame wars” but admitted graciously that the Sayre bloggers did have “influence.”



Read more!

Apology, Rebuke, and More...

Reading over my comments on The Virginian Federalist, I realize I may not have handled the situation as I should have...I spoke rashly and did not consider that my statements would reflect onto bloggers views on God Save Va (not sure how they got lumped into it) I have no affiliation with them, at this time. So I would like to publicly extend my fullest apology to "Spank That Donkey" for any and all actions taken by me, that were "unethical" One being when I said "You are acting like a five year old"

for this

"The Ethical Blogger would like to officially
apologize to Spank, and those who believe that cordiality should be the foundation of blogging."

But, this does not mean that Spank gets off easy...I would like to point out, one a great job done by Krehbiel Strikes Back in his post; Did Bloggers 4 Sayre beat the ODBA? , Spank said.

"B4S is the first time 18 Conservative bloggers has come
together for anything... The ODBA can not even claim that..."

And Krehbiel responded with some great journalism work, in the aforementioned post.

It seems several Swac bloggers, are in for it today, both Std and Swac Girl, had this to say on Vfed,

"So do we pass everything by you, Publius, to see if it qualifies as readable for the blogosphere? Are you judge and jury of what is
acceptable or a proper subject? I only respond since you specifically
mentioned the Sayre bloggers who did not go on personal attacks againt Hanger's family but hammered home issues. Perhaps you could cite
examples of where we were out of line?"

-Swac girl

"So Bloggers 4 Sayre did nothing but attack Senator Hanger? Abusive, Vile, and outright falsehoods... as the Slantin News Leader would put it?A candidates family and even employees get brought into this by pro-Hanger bloggers..."

"and I will repeat (hopefully not to be ignored again) Hanger called Myron and shut down B4H, but Myron's mudslinging continued for days afterward.. "

-STD

I bring these comments up for two reasons, one, it seems SOME Bloggers 4 Sayre have a personal issue with Republitarian, and two, that the Bloggers 4 Sayre are getting unfairly treated (gasp, I almost agree with STD)

let me explain...

I went through the site Bloggers 4 Sayre, and realized MOST of the site is only about issues, and was done so fairly tastefully, but I also noticed several similar comments left by STD, Swac girl and some other members of the site, that were anything but "ethical"

This will not become a "Blog War" between the Swacs and I.

Seems that yesterday STD comment on a site called Un Altro Breve Rapporta Su Legge, St Lo Impure posted about the "The Blogging police" and STD responded as such

"Isn't it interesting how these two new creations are not slamming republitarian for actual personal attacks on Scott Sayre's family and even employees?no their concern is Kilo vs. waldo and attacking the SWAC Leadership..I guess no one can see through this, nor care too....Lot's of condemnation of anonymous blogging from anonymous blogs.... amazing the hypocrisy of the mentalities behind these two new ventures... "

After asked

"???? "Lot's of condemnation of anonymous blogging from anonymous blogs.... amazing the hypocrisy of the mentalities behind these two new ventures..." ???Please explain."

by the sites author St. Lo Impure, Std went on to say

"Because they are attempting to slam SWAC leadership saying they are anonymous?coming from an anonymous blog.. this doesn't add up to you?Meanwhile, where have the SWAC bloggers been unethical in their blogging? I do not believe anonymous blogging is unethical, as it should be judged by it's content. "

St. Lo went on to say

"Because they are attempting to slam SWAC leadership saying they are anonymous?"where, I want copy pasted phrases by them. I would love to do a post about it."coming from an anonymous blog.. this doesn't add up to you?" no, need to get snippy, I didn't get what you were saying, I understand now, and would like either a link or something pointing to them condemning anon blogging. cause, lol, yeah they are anon themselves. "

Std, has yet to respond...I would like to know the answer to the questions myself, where did I or God Save Va say any of that stuff? I understand that STD doesn't have the best view of me, due to the fact that I did attack him on VFed, but why God Save Va???


This is not what should be happening in the blogosphere, at every turn we should not be expecting to see STD or any blogger defend there "candidate" against those who do not even assault them. It seems Std, claims that both God Save Va and I attacked swac bloggers, for being anonymous, which he rightly pointed out no anonymous blogger should ever attack another anonymous blogger for being anonymous, but (as far as I can tell) neither God Save Va nor I, did any such thing, and neither did Publius of the Va federalist. If I am incorrect please comment or e-mail me, I hold correct information in the highest regard and do not want to unfairly call STD a liar, but this is more then about "making things up" it is about chivalry, acting with good intentions, and STD is not going around defending himself, he is creating issues with bloggers who have no issue with him.
In this post STD says

"Thanks Ladies and Gentleman it's great to hang out with principled bloggers! Some bloggers have to 'talk' ethics, others 'walk' the ethics."

STD,

Why must you try to make this personal? I have to say that Bloggers 4 sayres in itself was a great idea and fairly ethical (100% might be a little too far) and recieves a 7, but you Std recieve a 3...Swac girl gets a 3.5, for continually bringing up Republitian.
If evidence is proven that either God Save Va, Publius, or I posted or commented attacking swac bloggers for posting anonymously, then I will immediatly raise his ethical ranking. St lo Impure receives a 5.5 for trying to stay out of the battle, and linking us :-)

Also, Std I will be doing a post about Republitarian and his posting on Sayre's wife's DUIs, but I will point out this was not a blog war...but the rest I will save for the post.
Read more!

Blogging Above and Beyond the Call of Duty

This article is about four separate blogs who have shown outstanding ethical and moral behavior.

Bearing drift,

Which is one of the oldest blogs in the Va Blogosphere, has to my knowledge been a beacon of hope in our blogosphere. they have not joined into these "blog wars" and they have effectively campaigned and treated there opponents with civility, which we could use more of.

The same goes for Vivian J. Paige,
(yes, that is right I don't hold any partisan beliefs as to who is ethical) She has been another such blogger who has been around for a while, who always treats those she disagrees with, with kindness and respect.

The Virginian Federalist,

Has been another such blog, since there creation in 2005 I have heard only good things. they also have sparked a lot of debate over cordiality in discussion, and blogging ethics and this is a very good thing.

lastly God Save Virginia,

This blog is fairly new, and has in its short existence sparked my interest in the fight to keep out blogosphere clean from the gossip and rumors.

each of these blogs shall receive an 8 in my ethical ranking, Bearing drift shall receive a 9, I would love to give them a ten, but that seems a bit premature. These are blogs I hope to see leading the way in a ethical revolution on the blogosphere. Read more!

Hearsay and the lack of credibility in the Blogosphere

hearsay according to the world book encyclopedia:

common talk; gossip; rumor (not the legal term)

This post is going to sound anti Waldo, but not on purpose, even if all Waldo claims is true. These issues with Waldo will still stand… I will be dealing with the blogosphere’s issue with hearsay.

(I will not be giving links to any members of the blogosphere in this post, only posts that are pointing out good ethics will a link be given. I am sorry for the inconvenience, if you feel I should put the links anyways, please contact me at Editor.bloggingethics@gmail.com. I would be glad to discuss the issue, but at this point I think this will be my decision.)

In journalism you must site sources, and have information backing up what you say, if you don’t you end up like Dan Rather. In the blogosphere this is normally the case, except when it is a struggle between bloggers, once it is a blog war, the conventional wisdom of journalism is thrown out the window, anything you say “can and will” be traced back to you, but how do we know this information is correct? Well, it seems Waldo Jaquith wants us to just trust him, he recently made a post titled “you’re never anonymous on the internet” which is partly true, but at the same time can never be proven, unless you go about a rather difficult process. Waldo on June 15^th claimed that a political blogger of the name “Carl Kilo” posted a “anon” comment on his blog under the post “hanger defeats Sayre” the pseudonym used was “teddy’s turds” according to Waldo, and it seems verified by other bloggers that this was the original name on the site.

“Teddy’s turds” said

“Hanger will destroy Cox. That is what matters. You happy democRATS?
You can talk about the SWAC all you want, but the fact is they took a unknown and came very close to beating a incumbent. The big losers are RK and NLS….Their candidates struck out. Why dont you talk about that? LOL!”

Waldo felt it was necessary to expose whoever made this “anon/pseudonym” comment for who they really were.

“Carl, I’ve taken the liberty of changing the name that you entered (”Teddy’s Turds”) to your real name. How embarrassing for you to have mistyped your name so severely. But, hey, mistakes happen, so I’ve got you covered.”

1. If you allow “anon” comments, you allow them, and are misleading commenters who do not realize they run the risk of you “exposing” them. 2. The comment wasn’t bad at all, it presented readers with two probable facts, 1. Hanger probably will win. 2. RK and NLS did get some things wrong this time around. The part that stated “you happy democRATS” made me laugh, it showed the intelligence of a two year old to think of that…my point is there was no need for Waldo to change the name to Carl Kilo in the first place, EVEN if Carl did post it!

Waldo in his post goes on to say all these things Carl said in an e-mail, the e-mails relevance was brought into question, til Waldo explained that Carl has had something happen of this sort before, whether Kilo posted the comment of not, I do not know, nor do I care, but the e-mail is real, as Carl admits in a comment on Waldo's site.

Another thing I find rather interesting is that Carl posted about it, if he did make the comment, why would he deny it, and post denying it? The only reason would be a strong vendetta against Waldo, if this is the case Kilo should be rebuked, but till Waldo can prove it, Kilo is innocent, the facts remain, that we do know that Waldo changed the name from “Teddy’s Turds” to Carl Kilo, and now has it as “Carl Kilo’s computer.”

The main point of this article is about hearsay and bloggers keeping there word, no blogger has the right to change a commenters name, no matter how sure they are that “this or that” person made it, if you don’t want anonymous commenters, you have the option of turning them off. To, this point this post has been very anti Waldo, but this is my main point about Kilo, WHO CARES! Other commenters, Although childishly, DO put your information in and make a comment “for you.” It really isn’t something easy to stop, but should be monitored by the owners of each blog.

Both Kilo and Waldo posted on June 15^th Kilo posted at 8:05 pm, I cannot find out when Waldo posted. So, who posted first will remain a mystery...

If I were to rank blogs, starting them all at a 5, having them either lose points for unethical behaviour or having them gain points by earning them, waldo would drop to a 4 for his use of hearsay/gossip, and changing an anon comment name. Kilo would drop to a 4.5 for making this into a big deal.

Things like this only hurt our Blogosphere, bloggers need to show the same professionalism when dealing with other bloggers as they do when breaking information about a candidate, they need facts and sources, witnesses and proof, if we lose that, we lose everything.

Read more!

My Vision for This Site!

Although some would say that giving attention to those bloggers who lack "moral scruples" only helps them, "gain attention" I believe they should be called out on there deplorable behavior and be rebuked for what they are.
Those who show character should thereby be commended for there work in making the blogosphere something credible and enjoyable for all! Read more!