First, let's consider bloggers vs. journalists in terms of objectivity. Here are the supposed standards for journalists on that front:

1. Unequivocal separation between news and opinion. In-house editorials and opinion (Op-Ed) pieces are clearly separated from news pieces. News reporters and editorial staff are distinct.
   
   
2. Unequivocal separation between advertisements and news. All advertisements must be clearly identifiable as such.
   
   
3. Reporter must avoid conflicts of interest -- incentives to report a story with a given slant. This includes not taking bribes and not reporting on stories that affect the reporter's personal, economic or political interests. See envelope journalism.
   
   
4. Competing points of view are balanced and fairly characterized.
   
   
5. Persons who are the subject of adverse news stories are allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond to the adverse information before the story is published or broadcast.
   
   
6. Interference with reporting by any entity, including censorship, must be disclosed.

From what I can tell, points two, three and six are not only widely accepted standards of journalism, but standards of blogging as well. We clearly disagree on the first and fourth points, as bloggers make no pretensions of "balance" or disinterested reporting of current events (And why would we? Does the country really need ten thousand new, independent, mini-news outlets mimicking what existing outlets at least claim to do? How pointlessly redundant would that be? Further, as I already mentioned, I don't even want to be a journalist--I want to be an activist. I am sure there are some political bloggers who want to be journalists, such as those connected to the Talking Points Memo blogosphere, but they are a minority of political bloggers.

Point number five remains a gray area online. Certainly, subjects of blogosphere writing are allowed to have a chance to respond--and such responses are welcomed--to articles or posts after they are published. However, I have seen a growing tendency among partisans of presidential candidates to demand that bloggers ask campaigns to respond in advance of posts discussing that campaign. In my experience, I think it would be a big mistake for bloggers to adopt this practice, because sometimes the only way we can get attention or have the staff member of an influential Democrat to talk to us is after we have made a post discussing that candidate. If we waited for campaigns to respond to our questions before we made any post on that campaign, it would greatly decrease our overall content output because very few campaigns would respond to us in a timely fashion, if at all. Further, asking campaigns to comment on articles in progress would result in accusations that we are violating rules two and three in this list. I can see the accusations now: if a campaign is actually helping us write and article, aren't we really just shilling for that campaign? Finally, a blog post is far more mutable than an article in a periodical, or a report on either live television or radio. Any damage caused just is not as permanent as in other medias, and the chances to respond are far more accessible. I say this rule is up to individual bloggers, and should be taken on a case-by-case basis even then.

Now, let's look at accepted sourcing standards in journalism:

1. Confidentiality of anonymous sources (see news source).
2. Avoidance of anonymous sources when possible.
3. Accurate attribution of statements made by individuals or other news media.
4. Pictures, sound, and quotations must not be presented in a misleading context (or lack thereof). Simulations, reenactments, alterations, and artistic imaginings must be clearly labelled as such, if not avoided entirely.
5. Plagiarism is strongly stigmatized and in many cases illegal (see copyright).

When it comes to sourcing, it seems to me that the political blogosphere is in complete agreement. I would actually argue that the blogosphere is better at this, because hyperlinks allow for far more immediate and direct sourcing than is available in any other medium.

Accuracy and standards for factual reporting:

1. Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available, and to seek reliable sources.
   
   
2. Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution.
   
   
3. Independent fact-checking by another employee of the publisher is desirable
   
   
4. Corrections are published when errors are discovered.
   
   
5. Defendants at trial are treated only as having "allegedly" committed crimes, until conviction, when their crimes are generally reported as fact (unless, that is, there is serious controversy about wrongful conviction).
   
   
6. Opinion surveys and statistical information deserve special treatment to communicate in precise terms any conclusions, to contextualize the results, and to specify accuracy, including estimated error and methodological criticism or flaws.

When it comes to points 1, 2, 4 and 6, I think there is total agreement. I also think we do a much, much better job on #6 than any established media outlets, and should be cut slack on #1 because of our extremely limited resources and time constraints when publishing new stories. On point #3, the independent fact-checking is actually done after publication, and instead of being done by other "employees" it is conducted be readers of a blog. I think there is disagreement on point number five, which is sometimes a problem, but which is also connected to not having any pretense toward objectivity and / or our total lack of desire to be journalists. It does not apply very often, anyway.

Slander and libel:

1. Reporting the truth is never libel, which makes accuracy and attribution very important.
   
   
2. Private persons have privacy rights that must be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. Public figures have fewer privacy rights.
   
   
3. Publishers vigorously defend libel lawsuits filed against their reporters.

This seems to be another case where we are in complete agreement. In fact, overall, the only points where we are in disagreement on all of these principles that is not directly connected to our lack of pretense toward "objectivity," is whether or not we should ask subjects of our posts for comments and responses before making a given post. And, in the end, I think that means that the only places where friction actually occurs is when people fail to appreciate the interactivity of the blogosphere, and consider blog posts to be the equivalent of articles published in newspapers or magazines. The notion that it is somehow a violation of trust and responsibility to not have all of one's facts sorted out, and all comments from all sources already prepared before the initial publication of a blog post fails to appreciate that a blog post is an ongoing process. Comments are added at the end of blog posts. Posts themselves are frequently edited and updates. Often, blog posts are made in response to other posts, and a discussion ensues. Unlike articles in other mediums, which are fixed to a far greater extent, a blog post is a living, evolving, entity. If all comments, edits, responses and updates to a blog post where published simultaneously with the original post, the blogosphere would be a profoundly static and lifeless place.

Blog posts are alive in ways that posts in other mediums simply are not, and that should be taken into account when in an discussion of blogger ethics, responsibility, or accountability. The only reason you should be mad at a blogger for posting inaccurate information is if that person refuses to correct him or herself once evidence demonstrates s/he is wrong, or if that person did not even try to figure out the facts before publication. The only reason you should be mad at a blogger for not seeking a response from the subject of a post before publication is if that blogger refuses to listen to any comments or responses after the post has already been made. Those are two critical aspects of traditional journalistic standards that are simply handled in more interactive, open process ways in the blogosphere than they are in other mediums. And if certain wags refuse to recognize this, or if they refuse to cut bloggers slack in this regard considering the enormous pressures many of us are under to create new content, then they are either forgetful, or simply unaware of, the way the medium works. Or, they are just being jerks.

So, I think I learned something today. With the exception of making no pretense about taking sides, we actually do follow the norms of journalistic standards. Even in other areas where it appears we do not follow those standards, we are simply doing so in other, more process-oriented and interactive fashions. Who knew? Maybe I am something of journalist, but a journalist for progressive activists and political professionals rather than for the general public. I still don't like to think of myself that way, but if I am following pretty much every journalistic standard, then perhaps there is no avoiding it.