Bloggers Debate Code of Conduct for Political Sites On Saturday, more than 50 of the state's bloggers -- on the right and the left, the young and the old -- spent a day meeting each other and debating whether there is a need for a common moral compass for this new form of political communication.
Pittsburgh's bloggers gather to drink beer and eat wings -- every other month.
The idea that "no one has any business telling them what they should say or how they should say it" is only one side of the coin. There needs to be more said in terms of "responsibility."
I long for "peer review" as is the case in the academic world. Peer review is an important element among watchdogs -- and it is often absent.
Furthermore, the common moral compass resides within each person, not in some other agency. The hook to each moral decision resides with the person -- each with a name. This means that faceless, nameless and undercover phantom postings of blogs with content of consequence are out of bounds.
I am certain that many politicians and lawmakers are knocking on the doors of state board of election officials to raise concerns to keep their jobs and mask the flow of truthful reporting. My wish is that governmental workers document those concerns and statements and post them. Then people can see the thought (or lack of thought) process and in turn, vote the small-thinking and selfish out of office as soon as possible.
I have no use for any lawmaker who aims to make new legislation for bloggers.
A blog conference with meaning and purpose is a great idea.
If Virginia's political bloggers want more influence and credibility, they should begin by earning reputations for telling the truth, being upfront about who they are, and treating their audiences with intelligence and decency.