The NYT came up with
10 Rules For Blogging the other day. What do they have to say?
-What should be avoided in all of them is any hint of racist, sexist or religious bias, or any suggestion of nasty, snide, sarcastic, or condescending tone — “snark.”
-If something could easily fit in a satirical Web site for young adults, it probably shouldn’t go into the news pages of nytimes.com.
-Contractions, colloquialisms and even slang are, generally speaking, more allowable in blogs than in print.
-Obscenity and vulgarity are not.
-Unverified assertions of fact, blind pejorative quotes, and other lapses in journalistic standards don’t ever belong in blogs.
-Writers and editors of blogs must also distinguish between personal tone and voice and unqualified personal opinion.
-A blog or news column has to give readers the arguments and factual information that led to the writer’s conclusion — enough argument and fact on both or all sides of the issue to enable the reader to decide whether to agree or disagree
-That does not apply to editorials or Op-Ed columns, which “are not intended to give a balanced look at both sides of a debate,” as the Readers’ Guide says.
-Headlines on analysis should try to capture the debate rather than taking sides in it.
-If the comments contain vulgarity, obscenity, offensive personal attacks, say that somebody “sucks,” or are incoherent, moderators are advised just to chuck them out.
So apparently I fail at blogging. Yup. Or the NYT doesn't really understand blogging. One of the two. I'm going with the second one, not for my own sake, but because the most popular blogs I know are highly opinionated, snarktastic, and very fond of all things obscene and vulgar. Which, let's face it, is kind of the
point of blogging, isn't it? That everyone can have their own voice and we don't have to pretend to be all professional and unbiased like the newspeople?