In his Media Decoder blog, David Carr notes a court ruling this week that has potential implications for Americans asserting themselves as journalists.

A blogger who was sued for defamation could not use Oregon's law to defend her use of material from a source --- in effect to try to shield her from the suit --- because the court ruled she was not entitled to the privileged position of mainstream media the law provides.

The court noted she was not affiliated with a media organization or entity. The law was written before blogging emerged. She has been ordered to pay $2.5 million in damages in the case.

Her defence was unusual, in that she was asserting the offending post was based on an anonymous source. She argued she deserved protection as a publisher under the law. 

While experts believe the ruling will have little effect on journalism, it will stimulate debate on the definition of a journalist in the digital age and the possible need for legal reform to reflect the new definition. 

Ten days into Britain's major inquiry into media practices, there have been several revelations and many trivialities.

Key is the sense that the phone-hacking scandal sprawls well beyond the earlier identified. What is also clear is that the public complaint mechanism in England is unable to contend with the companies it watches.

The Guardian's James Robinson summarizes the proceedings to date.

One of the most challenging issues to the reputation of news organizations is how to deal with the stream of online comments, particularly those that stray from civility.

Moderation often only infuriates commenters by delaying or filtering their views and preventing real-time debates. But the absence of moderation can be a free-for-all in no one's best interest, eventually eroding the reputation of the host.

The New York Times is reworking its comments system to permit trusted readers --- those who consistently supply well-received comments --- to jump the queue and be posted publicly immediately. Others will have to await a moderator's touch. The results will be interesting to see.

What do you think of this?

A couple of weeks ago Jim Romenesko resigned from the Poynter Institute after a dozen years as one of the most influential media writers online.

At the time the institute suggested there were issues involving the structure of his posts, following a review that suggested there was an "overaggregation" of content.

Romenesko has resurfaced at his namesake site and filed his version of events. 

Meantime Poynter has renamed Romenesko+ to MediaWire.

The ethics committee of the Canadian Association of Journalists (full disclosure: I am a former member) has produced a primer on best practices in digital accuracy.

Its scope includes a very stern opposition to unpublishing and a very strong support of transparent corrections.

The committee, led by Toronto Star public editor Kathy English, determined several best practices for the industry. Among them: helping readers report errors, transparency in corrections, prominent placement of corrections, and timeliness in the effort to correct.

The committee also reiterated the need for uniform standards across all platforms, including the discipline of verification.

The media blogger, Jim Romenesko, long popular among journalists and non-journalists alike for his sage curation of media stories, left the Poynter Institute's site abruptly yesterday after a dozen years as a contributor.

His departure followed a complaint that his blog (of which he is but one contributor) had been overaggregating content, making it less of an incentive to visit the original source. Julie Moos at Poynter outlined the ethical dilemma involved. There were some questions, too, about the techniques of attribution and linking. These came from a journalist working for the Columbia Journalism Review, who has outlined the saga in a post today.

The departure has drawn criticism for the way it was seemingly handled, and in that regard the Poynter faculty has weighed in with a variety of views. The always lively Reuters blogger, Felix Salmon, has chipped in on the matter, too, wondering about the validity of journalistic standards in an age of aggregation.

But the concerns are significant in an age of content curation, sharing and linking, because they raise questions about the obligations of media to provide credit and direct traffic elsewhere as they build upon stories.

For some time, media organizations were aware of the identity of one of the women accusing Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment. Until Tuesday, no one chose to identify her.

Then, when The Daily did so, other organizations responded by doing so.

This prompted a debate on the ethics of shielding and identifying and the considerations of vulnerability, victimization and privacy that factor into decision-making on such matters.

The Poynter Institute's Kelly McBride provides an overview of the issue. She found the initial decision to conceal her identity "baffling" and suggests the episode reveals a lack of journalistic leadership in the pursuit of truth.

What do you think?

Associated Press has amended its social media guidelines to be clearer about the responsibilities inherent in redistributing another account's Tweets.

The news agency says its staff should not ReTweet in a way that makes it appear they are expressing an opinion or support. And a disclaimer that the ReTweets are not their own views does not suffice, AP says.

It is telling staff to avoid the unadorned ReTweet. It argues that implies support. This is in line with many other organizations that view ReTweets as little different than expressions of opinion.

It didn't take a fertile imagination to believe one day someone would be offered money to link to a company website. Such is the value of a hyperlink.

Now a Gawker.com writer has an offer in hand to indicate it's happening.

Hamilton Nolan has laid out the correspondence that indicates an advertising agency would pay him $175 to link to a website inside one of his stories. The agency suggests it has bloggers linking to its clients, including several prominent companies, for a fee.

In the hours since the story was posted, one publication and one client have denied they are associated with the practice.

The Supreme Court of Canada this week ruled that the presence of a hyperlink on a website does not confer legal responsibility for its content. It means that sites can link without fear they will be liable.

The ruling has been seen as a bit of a commonsensical acknowledgment of reality --- it would be quite difficult to enforce what happens in Canada and elsewhere as a cultural norm of the Internet --- but also as another effort to interpret the Canadian version of freedom of expression.

The Globe and Mail today offers a feature on the ruling and its implications for journalistic standards.