The confusion was a nightmare for journalists and judges and ultimately benefited nobody. Arguably the biggest victim was Ryan Giggs, although considering some of the details of his alleged extra-marital activities it's hard to feel too sorry for the man.

But there's a similarly confusing scenario playing itself out over in the US at the moment, which is far more troubling. First off, check out this blog post over at the bankruptcy corruption blog. Done it?

Good. Now consider this: that post is looking set to cost its author $2.5 million after an Oregon Judge decided it was defamatory and that blogger Crystal Cox should pay this ridiculous sum in damages.

Fair enough you might say - some of what she writes is pretty strongly worded, and not exactly flattering of its subject Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance. You might say that, until you learn on what grounds this fine has been issued.

The problem apparently is that Crystal Cox's writing in this post has a very factual tone. If these negative statements were presented as trolling or simply wacko conspiracy opinion then that'd (probably) be fine according to the law. In fact, a number of other posts in the case were thrown out of consideration by the judge for precisely this reason - they weren't as factual in tone.

Here's where the problem arises: Cox's blog is factual in tone precisely because it's based on research and insider sources - she didn't simply pluck these fantasies out of her head. A key aspect of why she has access to such information is that she protects her sources anonymity, something which many journalists of all types will recognise as standard practice. Those who work for a local newspaper would have done things exactly the same as Cox did - and would hence have faced no punishment from the very same judge. 

The problem for Cox is that, since the judge ruled her not to be a 'real' journalist, she couldn't enjoy the same privilege that journalists enjoy of reporting factually based on evidence from sources without naming them. Cox must reveal the identity of her sources in order to prove her justification for writing so negatively about Obsidian finance in a factual manner - or she must pay damages for defamation.

So here are a few questions I have for Judge Marco Hernandez who presided over the case:

• What if Crystal Cox wrote for a group edited blog like Techcrunch? Would she then be considered as affiliated with a media organisation, thus a 'real' journalist and 'thus' legally protected to do her work? If the answer is yes, then at what point does a blog become a media organisation? Is it a matter of pageviews? Or number of authors? Number of posts?
• What if Crystal Cox reveals her earnings from such work, and the fact that her main income is from such activities? (n.b. I don't know whether this is or isn't the case). Is she then a journalist?
• What if Crystal Cox tries to dress more 'journalisty' - could she then be considered a journalist?
• What about the personal blog of a technical support worker employed by a major newspaper? They are 'affiliated' with an organisation, where does their blog stand? What about the personal blog of someone whose day job is to be a newspaper (or TV, or whatever) journalist? (Here's an interesting example of this)

Ok so this is kinda flippant - the point is that to use a definition of 'journalist' that essentially belongs in the 1980's is clearly not going to be workable in today's media environment. And in the meantime people like Crystal Cox get fined ridiculous sums like $2.5 million for having the honour to do what a professional journalist would do - protecting a whistle-blower's anonymity. Interestingly, Cox would probably have not received the fine had she been based in many of the other states of the US, since this legislation is put together at state level (perhaps a policy requiring re-consideration since the internet is a little bit less confined by state boundaries than abortion clinics are).

Until legislators catch up with how the web works today and not in 1999, it seems this potential confusion and chaos is here to stay for now. If you are a blogger, the best you can do right now is to try and inform yourself on the current state of play and hope you're covered by good practice (since in law you possibly won't be). If you are a US blogger your situation is unfortunately a little more perilous since libel and defamation laws are generally tighter than here in the UK. Here's a great resource from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation which should help you inform yourself of the current legal state of play. Some of the points will also be useful for UK based bloggers, as will guides such as this one. (I am not very well informed on non-English language resources I'm afraid, Sorry for non-UK/US bloggers). Good luck!

While it's not exactly the great firewall yet, it is certainly a step in that direction as Berlusconi's notoriously controversial (corrupt) government is attempting to pass a bill that would render blog posts on a par with news media regarding the responsibility to give right to reply - and potential fines of up to 12,000 euro for those who fail to comply.

Now, many people might consider this a welcome arrival of the blogosphere into the serious realm of responsibility, authority, and respectability enjoyed by mainstream (newspaper and television) news media. They might argue that such a thing might be a good idea in other countries also and would merely reflect the reality of the modern media environment in which the lines between what the law considers news media and what is considered a blog are increasingly blurred.

Well, it might be a good idea to introduce this law in other countries (maybe - though my instinct is that it wouldn't be) but what is for sure is that Italy is one of the last places in world where such a law would be of benefit to anyone other than those with serious secrets they wish to keep hidden but which ordinary people have an interest in and a desire to discuss (i.e. many of the top figures currently in power and the details of their various corruptions).

Hence, the problem with putting blogging on a par with mainstream media in Italy is precisely that Berlusconi already exerts a sickening stranglehold over mainstream television (and to a lesser extent also print). Thus the simple premise of this new legislation is to bully (with the threat of grossly intimidating fines) those who might wish to write something online that somebody in a position of power might not like, enjoy, or agree with.

So, as a blogger, unless you agree to allow said persons their right to reply (which in essence will merely be used as a window to stall, or otherwise dilute the blog post) you will face the 12k euro fine. While the right too reply is a fundamental principle of a democratically functioning news media environment (and one I would usually consider desirable), the problem here is exactly to do with the specificity of Berlusconi's attempt to exploit this principle for avoiding personal political losses (the whole issue has emerged around specific wiretap recordings detailing Berlusconi's criminal dealings, which he seeks to suppress).

Anyway all pretty sad and infuriating, but no more so than any other episode of Silvio Berlusconi's political (and otherwise) life. I write that sentence in the full knowledge that an Italian blogger probably won't have the luxury of being able to do so in a few more months (unless he/she has a spare 12,000 euro knocking around or basically agrees to have Berlusconi's self propaganda also accompanying the piece).

What various web companies must be thinking of this one can only imagine, but the implications could be massive; imagine for example if Tweets were subjected to the same law, or wall posts and status updates? The law is therefore additionally idiotic from the perspective of economics and innovation, on top of its being a blatant attempt to reduce the potential for any form of dissent to arise on the blogosphere and to extend Berlusconi's grip on media chanels into the area of new media.

The article nicely covers the four or five key aspects which need to be considered to construct an effective strategy, as well as offering practical tips on the technical side of things (championing WordPress as the optimal CMS option in most cases - with which it's hard to disagree). There's a little bit about the increasingly attractive option of incorporating video into posts, maximising 'sharing', and also the right amount of SEO to attempt (i.e. 1000 keywords in every post is overdoing it somewhat).

We've been running a blog here at etonDIGITAL for something like three or four years (like many mysterious relationships, it's hard to pinpoint when it officially began) and find it a great way to juggle various activities, from keeping people informed about the activities of the company, to participating in the wider discussions and debates of the blogosphere, a bit of SEO and so on. We do it all with WordPress and would recommend giving it a go to anyone - especially within a business context; it's highly rewarding and definitely doesn't involve a steep learning curve - especially with the help of a handy guide like the one over at Mashable right now. Go on - don't be shy, get blogging!

While both Techcrunch and 'Huffpost' can be described as blogs - indeed it is exactly what they are - there's something about the connotations of the word that render it somehow simultaneously inappropriate as a label for the two sites. This, I think, stems from the fact that popular conceptions of blogging have not yet caught up to the ever-present reality that, while 'blog' can mean an online method of voicing personal thoughts on this or that for free, used by millions of people the world over - it can also be something much closer to a more mainstream media organisation such as a national newspaper (albeit without the print version).

What the two recent AOL deals illustrate perfectly well is that while the blogosphere is extremely diverse, densely populated and often operates with a certain (relatively loud) background hum (i.e. it is sometimes hard to notice the good stuff simply cos there's so much out there) - there is real potential for established blogs, usually with teams of professional full-time writers and all the other things that you'd find at any 'traditional' print title (newspaper or magazine), to rival print titles not only in terms of reader numbers and advertising potential - but now also in terms of the economics of mergers and acquisitions.

Of course Huffpost and Techcrunch wouldn't have come with such a price tag if they didn't have all those readers - and they wouldn't have all those readers if they weren't doing something right. That thing most likely is a recognition of the importance of maintaining a certain standard in the quality of their output. This is done by genuinely sourcing stories (rather than simply commenting on what others have noticed or found out) and observing some sort of professional stance towards referencing etc. (N.B. I'm more of a Techcrunch reader than a Huffpost one, so my observations are more derived from the former - though I belive they hold for both - and also various others out there...)

This is not to say that mistakes don't happen or that daft stories don't get published - but just that, by having in place a mechanism for sourcing, editing, and referencing which approaches some way towards being on a par with quality newspapers or magazines (I'm not talking about the tabloid press, which - at least here in Britain - often falls well below any respectable benchmark for professionalism and self-regulation), Huffpost and Techcrunch have also been able to rival/match more traditional media in terms of authority and reliability. These really are the two values which then translate to great user stats, advertising potential and big takeovers. No matter how good your CEO staff are, they can't really do much if the authority and reliability of the content is constantly questionable, imprecise or derivative.

So, with these two high profile blogs proving that such qualities which used to be solely the preserve of print media are now entirely attainable online if one sets up to do things in a certain way, perhaps it's time that the popular perception of blogs were updated somewhat to reflect this new situation. Today's $315m deal, and the deadlines it is inevitably attracting will probably go some way towards this. Finally, it's surely a good thing to see that blogging remains a media format where the refreshingly low barrier to entry doesn't necessarily imply reduced potential for reach, growth, and success.

The blog does exactly what you'd expect, featuring over a hundred short comic posts titled after all the things that 'white people like' - from 'coffee', 'architecture', or 'Michel Gondry' right through to 'music piracy', 'black music that black people don't listen to anymore', 'Facebook,' and 'hummus'.

Anyway the whole thing is quite entertaining - and a first visit will quickly derail an entire afternoon's work, while the blog's success speaks amazingly well yet again for the springboard effect achievable by a talented, perceptive, and witty writer with a simple but clever blog. Lander has now quit his former job and is working on activities connected to the blog on a full time basis.

While some of the comments posts might betray a few disappointing sentiments (Youtube anyone?) the posts themselves are a treat, and it is nice to see a humble blogger doing so well, and not just with white audiences. The 63m hits the blog boasts display a diverse geographic and racial mix (judging by people's comments) and it is this that marks such an amusing and entertaining blog, as also being quite a perceptive and valuable forum for considering and debating questions about how our racial identities translate into lifestyle choices and tastes and preferences. Hats off to Lander for this, and good luck with the current book launch! (SWPL even has its own facebook app - check it out in the apps section).

Dejan Levi

The Times online responded with the more moderate view that blogging has merely changed, though this view seems a little superficial when one considers the degree of fundamental difference between modern web 2.0 blogging - and the 'old school' approach of four or five years ago.

The Wired article is pretty straightforward in its assessment of recent trends. Basically, blogging has now become a primarily commercial activity linked in most cases to processes of either advertising or SEO, (or both), - in any case underlined by the bottom line, so to speak.

The most-read blogs today are those using professional teams of writers delivering as many as twenty or thirty posts a day, easily drowning out the 'bedroom blogger' who in times gone by had a far greater chance of achieving widespread readership and a global audience. (See Technorati for up-to-date info on the Top 100 most read blogs)

Remember the incredible success story of Aint it Cool News back in the days of clunky old web 1.0? Harry Knowles was a film buff with a computer who managed to achieve an amazingly large fanbase through the DIY medium of blogging; certainly original voices like this would now find it far harder to get noticed.

Of course all this seems rather inevitable when taken in the wider context of the web's total and all-penetrating commercialisation. One could say that blogging has simply followed the same path as everything else, and ask why this isn't being welcomed?

After all, the commercial blog is a great thing in many cases, offering as it often does a free online magazine, written usually by very interesting and skilled professional writers. This is something surely to be celebrated both for readers, who now have access to far more in-depth and professional content, and for full-time writers who now stand a reasonable chance of making a living from their work.

However we must not forget that something valuable has been lost; the amazing breadth of different opinions and ideas that the uncommercialized blogosphere offered has sadly narrowed drastically, even though the portion that remains is now infinitely better.

Ultimately the issue is whether an adequate replacement is out there. A mass-communication tool that is free and democratic in terms of potential access to audiences, rather than one where reader numbers are a product of financial investment (with each month the blogosphere assumes more and more of the characteristics of other more traditional mass media outlets, requiring money to get heard).

Wired suggests Twitter and Facebook are currently providing free and open platforms for those expressions now lost amid the professionalism of the mature blogosphere, at least until they too go the way of the blog.

Ultimately though we have lost a certain totality in terms of the democratization of the net in giving expression to all individual voices, but we have also arrived at a situation where a genuinely good blogger - even if working alone - can through hard work find a way to make a living from such work. It might mean that the more casual alternatives are lost amid the busy traffic, but on the whole I can't imagine anyone would honestly say they prefer the choice of content offered in 2003 to that available now (even if the principles governing it then were slightly more democratic).

Dejan Levi