The problem is Glover’s implication of impropriety accompanied by stereotyping, and quite frankly you are doing the same.

If Glover has a problem with publishers’ revenue being generated from political sources, then he need look no further than the mirror. The National Journal is not Sports Illustrated.

Furthermore, what was his point to begin with?

For a more detailed response go to:

http://www.thepoliticalchase.com/journal/2006/12/3/nyt-and-the-national-journal-attack-bloggers.html

You should assign this phrase to a hotkey.

I should have explained it, but the \”citizenjournalism\” was written that way on purpose. That\’s how I refer to it using a particular and skeptical tone, in specific contexts, when talking in real life about the whole idea in terms of some sort of mass movement that\’s supposed to replace traditional journalism. Call it a silly little quirk, if you will–but absolutely in keeping with my personal sense of blogging as it applies to me, in particular: It\’s talking, spouting off, thinking aloud–whatever, much like what I do in conversation in real life. Journalism it ain\’t!

[Editor\'s note: The [sic] has been removed. And these stupid backslashes in front of each apostrophe are apparently some kind of idiotic bug in WordPress that serve only to let readers know a comment has been updated, a fact I\’ve already addressed. If anyone knows of a plugin that will fix this, please let me know.]

So I see that the second-most interesting article about blogs in the New York Times today got a lot of attention. That would be K. Daniel Glober’s op-ed on the increased linkages between bloggers and political candidates: The Netroots.” “People……

Essl had nothing to do with the article other than to draw the graphic. Frankly, I was surprised to see a double byline on the piece.

The editor never mentioned that the piece would have a double byline in all of the e-mails we exchanged, and as an editor who deals with double bylines, “contributed to this article taglines, etc., I don’t think it was appropriate in this instance. Maybe I’m crazy for saying that considering the reaction by some bloggers today because that puts more of the burden on me, but there you have it.

All of the information, including the quotes by the bloggers, was provided by me. The version I sent to the Times included links (though I believed they would only be used for fact-checking, just because that’s the way it works in print journalism).

I seriously doubt having included them would have changed the minds of any of my knee-jerk critics. One thing that might have helped would have been more information on the issue of disclosure. The chart initially was going to have a chart that listed the various ways that the bloggers disclosed their ties. But as I told Micah Sifry at Personal Democracy Forum, we dropped that section and instead went with the general sentence with just the one named example.

I’m not convinced that keeping that part of the chart would have mattered in terms of sparing me the outrage, but maybe.

Danny