This thread was inspired by modcast 2
which I encourage everyone to check out.
As we all know, over the last months the political threads got so infected with blog citing, hateful and inaccurate threads, which precipitated the
recent draconian measure.
And for the few that are familiar with my ExposeD threads, which battled these kind of blogs, it would seem logical to assume that I would be in total
agreement with their restriction.
But to be fair, one must consider the following:
A blog (a contraction of the term "Web log") is a Web site, usually maintained by an individual , with regular entries of commentary,
descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video.wiki
An editorial, leader (UK), or leading article (UK) is an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial
board, or publisher.wiki
But many newspapers as they try to keep up with electronic media, have journalists who have their own blogs on the newspaper's websites.
And there are many political websites which rival the quality of writing and research of the New York Times or the Washington Post.
So it seems to me that the line between "editorials" and "blogs" can be at times very blurred.
It is fair to say that it is easy enough to recognize the extreme blogs that lie and distort.
But it is not fair to say that information is inaccurate and not ATS worthy simply because it is sourced to a blog by definition.
So I don't know any more where I stand on this.
It hasn't really been an issue as I grew tired of political threads and have stayed away from them.
But I think this is a valid point, addressing a complicated gray area of political news, which I would love both members and member/mods to chime in
[edit on 9/28/2008 by schrodingers dog]