I read the latest blog entry on Your Advocate: an editor's blog a few times and then pondered what I would say before I actually commented.  Maybe even now it won't come out the way I want it to - but I never promised you a real writer, either.

I think that is what needs to be addressed first. Before blog entries and comments are flagged and possibly deleted, people have to remember that we are just people. Some of us are trained writers and some of us are professional writers, but most of us are just people who like to put words together and voice our opinions.

I don’t have any kind of training or experience with writing outside of high school English and UIL News Writing. I actually loved it and wanted to pursue something in the field, but I joined the Army and it at went downhill from there.

Then I found Xanga and was introduced to the wonderful world of blogging. Xanga.com was one of the FIRST blogging sites out there, and helped launch the “craze.” (That makes me feel so old.) With blogging and blogs came the notion that anyone can write about anything and it could be read by the masses (if they found it).

Writers came out of the woodwork and people started getting famous for blogging. It is a fantastic concept, but I think that by putting strict rules on what you can and can’t write is tainting the concept of what blogging and blogs are all about.

I also like to call it something else: censorship.

In the particular blog entry that I am referencing, there is talk about the “duty of the journalist,” and “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists."

Bloggers are not journalists.

We are bloggers.

Crazy as it may seem, there is a big difference. I know of bloggers who are journalists, or want to be journalists, but still – there is a difference. I am not a journalist. I don’t have to report in an unbiased way. I write what I want – when I want. That is the beauty of being a blogger and not a paid writer at a newspaper or something of the like.

The cause of my irritation has to do with the proposed reasons a blog or comment may be deleted. First, a registered user or blogger has to report (flag) a comment or blog entry as offensive to them. Once flagged, the entry or comment is reviewed by an in-house ethics board at the Victoria Advocate.

Here are the reasons in which comments or entries may be deleted:

1. Pornography.
2. Objectionable language (although we allow a little more leeway online where readers have a higher tolerance than in a family newspaper).
3. Unfair attacks on a business or individual. These can be tough judgment calls that may require some discussion by members of our ethics board.
4. Spam.
5. Racism.
6. Copyright infringement.

It is safe to say that pornography, spam, racism, and copyright infringement are obvious reasons someone’s words should be deleted. I don’t quite understand number 2 though.

They will allow “a little more leeway online” as far as profanity goes. I think that is just asking for a can of worms to be opened. Where do you start and stop the leeway bus?

I think that socially accepted objectionable words should not be allowed. You can’t really get across an intelligent point talking like a sailor, in my opinion anyway. As far as it not being a family newspaper – I know plenty of under 18 teens/kids who read the Advocate Online.

So… that one may backfire on you.

That just leaves us with number 3. I want to say this is a surprise, but I would be faking it. It is no secret that I have declared war on certain establishments in Victoria, but in doing so I have always written about things that really happened (as can be seen in my colorful archive...). I never embellished the truth, and I always “told it like it was.”

My question is this: If I write about a bad experience and tell people not to frequent the establishment anymore, will my entry be deemed offensive and deleted? Most blog entries are about experiences of one’s own life.

Most of my blog entries are about the sad state of customer service in our town. I have made big name restaurants pretty upset, but I have never deviated from the truth either. As they say, the truth hurts.

Where will the in-house ethics board draw the line? Will they be pressured from business owners who don’t want bad feedback or will the board delete only obvious false accusations and made up stories?

Will pictures and names of offenders be deemed offensive and considered an "unfair attack against an individual?"

I am all for rules and regulations. Contrary to what some believe, sensitive people and children/kids/tweens/teens read the Advocate Online, the blogs, and discussion forums.

Rules need to be in place.

However, if I take a picture of a manager at a fast food place who is paid to service me, and instead calls me a female dog, and then post it here telling of the events – will that entry be deleted?

I want to know how far this proposed “rule” goes and how far the ethics board will take it when discussing whether to delete blogs.

What do you guys think?

Most of all, Chris Cobler, what does this proposal mean to the people who want to bring to light the ever increasing problem of bad service in Victoria?

I want answers… and Twizzlers.

Also – can we please do something about the whole “type in this code to submit a comment” and the “you have to log in every 5 minutes” thing.

kthxbi.

.