Yes, I believe that political/news bloggers should have a code of ethics. 

Throughout this entire quarter, we have been discussing the immense importance and influence of blogging and how many news consumers solitarily receive their news from blogs.  If blogs are being considered a legitimate source of news and are high on the journalistic trustworthy scale since they are not bound to or independent to any of the major media outlets, then yes, bloggers should be held to a code of ethics.  If blogs are considered a “fifth estate” on the “fourth estate” news, then yes, bloggers should be held to a code of ethics.  If by the summer of 2004, it was clear that government officials viewed blogs as both credible and influential when political bloggers were given press credentials to attend both the Republican and Democratic political conventions, then bloggers should be held to a code of ethics.  If many landmark stories broken by blogs are being catapulted to fame at the major media outlets like the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex scandal or Dan Rather falsely reporting on George W. Bush’s military record, then bloggers should be held to a code of ethics. 

Another dead giveaway that bloggers need to have a code ethics is that O’Reilly wrote about the issues of infringement.  If we are going to have the argument about “stealing” versus “property rights” then obviously there needs to be some kind of set standards.  If there is any gray area due to the advent of blogs, then a code of ethics might prove helpful.   

So, it really boils down to the issue of the success of blogs in carrying out the democratic responsibilities of journalism.  This tends to the greater argument: if blogs are considered true forms of journalism.  If they are, then of course they need to have a code of ethics. 

How do governments, big telecommunications and entertainment companies restrict citizens to certain sites?  I don’t understand how they have the actual capacity to do this…

Why aren’t civil rights attorneys shouting about this clampdown?  Why aren’t they defending our rights concerning infringement and surveillance?