Thanks for your thoughts here: the confusion up here in Northern Ohio, led mostly by the PeeDee and its “defenders of the third estate,” obfuscated the fact that they got the story all wrong (not surprisingly). I pulled back on my own reporting of this story when I learned that there was some confusion over who did what to whom with what. Your distance and superior knowledge of the issues gives you a more detached and balanced perspective.

Oddly enough, the PeeDee quoted my post in their Sunday “PDQ” Section, in a column reserved for quoting local bloggers. While they didn’t quote the part where I took them to task for their role in the entire blogger/journalist ethics debate, at least they led people to my web site to let them form their own opinions. I guess that was about as close as they wanted to come to the whole debate without having to admit that they blew it this time.

Considering that my wife is the News Editor of the PeeDee’s nearest competitor, based a mere 25 miles to the east of Cleveland, and that I have slammed the PeeDee on more than one occasion (not within the blogger ethics debate), the PeeDee’s publishing my comments on this issue become even more illuminating: previously, I had no more than a snowball’s chance in hell of being published in that column.

The story (which turns out to be about the blogger/journalist ethics issue and NOT plagiarism) is far from over, too: yesterday, a PeeDee columnist had a few more misrepresentations about the bloggers that carried the story in the first place. After reading a lot surrounding this issue (both truth and lies), I can say that the commenters fanned the flames far more than the bloggers themselves; the PeeDee conveniently misses this important distinction, lumping commenters in with bloggers in one misleading term.

Sadly, the war continues, and the truth will eventually be left somewhere in the dust — creating even more mistrust.

Thanks for your thoughts here: the confusion up here in Northern Ohio, led mostly by the PeeDee and its “defenders of the third estate,” obfuscated the fact that they got the story all wrong (not surprisingly). I pulled back on my own reporting of this story when I learned that there was some confusion over who did what to whom with what. Your distance and superior knowledge of the issues gives you a more detached and balanced perspective.

Oddly enough, the PeeDee quoted my post in their Sunday “PDQ” Section, in a column reserved for quoting local bloggers. While they didn't quote the part where I took them to task for their role in the entire blogger/journalist ethics debate, at least they led people to my web site to let them form their own opinions. I guess that was about as close as they wanted to come to the whole debate without having to admit that they blew it this time.

Considering that my wife is the News Editor of the PeeDee's nearest competitor, based a mere 25 miles to the east of Cleveland, and that I have slammed the PeeDee on more than one occasion (not within the blogger ethics debate), the PeeDee's publishing my comments on this issue become even more illuminating: previously, I had no more than a snowball's chance in hell of being published in that column.

The story (which turns out to be about the blogger/journalist ethics issue and NOT plagiarism) is far from over, too: yesterday, a PeeDee columnist had a few more misrepresentations about the bloggers that carried the story in the first place. After reading a lot surrounding this issue (both truth and lies), I can say that the commenters fanned the flames far more than the bloggers themselves; the PeeDee conveniently misses this important distinction, lumping commenters in with bloggers in one misleading term.

Sadly, the war continues, and the truth will eventually be left somewhere in the dust — creating even more mistrust.