The least attractive element of the Internet's culture of conversation has been the all-too-frequent disregard for basic accountability in the commentary attached to stories, topics, images and discussions.

For some reason, anonymity is acceptable --- not as the justifiable shield for those who fear retribution if identified, but as a shield for those with other kinds of fears, motives or tendencies. Somewhere early in the game it became a rule instead of an exception to adopt a nickname and speak through it.

The result breaks what we were all taught rightly in school: That part of the bargain in speaking freely is the responsibility to stand up and be counted, and that part of the bargain in being criticized is to at least know who is attacking.

It's heartening, then, to read J.R. Johnson, the CEO of the social sharing service Lunch.com, observe in the San Jose Mercury News a shift to more accountability in comments online. He believes, and I agree, that more transparency among contributors and commenters will spur more participation; at the moment, many are keeping out of the fray because the unattributed cohort is given a long leash.

Ultimately the benefit will outweigh the detriment in making visible all but a handful --- those who truly need the protection.

The New York Times' recent examination of the Harvard Medical School was an extensively researched investigation involving a big media outlet asking big questions and producing a big conclusion on inherent conflicts.

Eric Alterman suggests the story is a good example of why it's important to try to preserve journalism's existing format. The Harvard school is large, a recipient of government grants, and not subject to Freedom of Information law.

"Do you think it will cooperate with some blogger?"

The MBA Blogs from Business Week are a frequent source of good media observation. A new post argues that the way for companies to get media is to be media.

By that, it means creating a blog and hiring writers instead of creating a marketing budget and hiring an agency. It means breaking news instead of making it. It means writing about your targeted media list instead of waiting for them to target you.

To many newsrooms, the advice here might feel menacing.

Inside Higher Ed offers an idea to fill some of the gap created by the loss of voice in some markets: Models based on the expertise in universities or related institutions.

The academic blogger. Campus-based ventures for local and regional news. Undergraduates serving as reporters. Land-grant approaches to funding. Tapping into the constellation of entities (galleries, museums, and the like) associated with the university.

All are put on the table as possibilities in this intriguing approach.

"If these trends continue, the public affairs that most nearly touch our everyday lives -- school board elections, library censorship battles, state bond issues, social service regulations, land development schemes -- will become veiled from public discussion,"  writes David Scobey. "Those with power will have a powerful incentive to inside dealing and corruption; those without it will have a powerful inducement to acquiescence."

The announcement this week of a deal between the Seattle Times and a batch of local neighbourhood blogs is an indication of the change under way in news.

Only a couple of years ago, a deal like this would have been unthinkable for either party --- the legacy media wouldn't have deigned to open themselves to the hyperlocal parties, and those parties would have found it suffocating to play with the Goliaths.

Mutual interests have emerged: legacy media want the granular coverage, hyperlocal media need the larger impact to generate a better business model.

The nature of the deal is lacking in financial specifics. It's all about exploring advertising opportunities, collaborating on content, exchanging links and audiences, and agreeing to examine the common opportunities.

But it's an interesting model for others to study. Seattle is one of the strongest examples of a market able to pursue such a deal, but there are others near and far.

At a presentation today at the Aspen Institute conference on journalism, veteran media executive, CUNY professor and Buzzmachine blogger Jeff Jarvis talked about a new business model for hyperlocal news.

It presumes big and doesn't necessarily accommodate small.

But it's a first step in the reconsideration of the metrics necessary to ensure strong local coverage takes place in the time ahead.

Essentially Jarvis' model organizes local bloggers into a network that associates for advertising.

The concept founders on the existing economics of digital advertising, but the principle is an interesting one that ought to be explored more fully before dismissing it. (He took a fair amount of heat quickly from others attending the conference.)

It isn't clear how the bloggers would organize to avoid excessive duplication or assign and share work, but no matter --- that's in the details for later.

A central dilemma in legacy media's efforts in digital journalism is how to deal with differing cultures of the platforms. Paid versus free, for instance. One-to-many versus many-to-many.

And transparent versus anonymous. The ability for people to shield their identities in posting and commenting online poses a challenge for many media organizations steeped on the discipline of verification and the discretion of concealment.

The Daily Telegraph's Paul Carr, always a thoughtful writer, weighs in with a blog/essay that outlines many of the core issues in the debate still coursing through newsrooms of what to do about the anonymous.

Is anonymity an abuse of privilege or a basic right of privacy? From what I can tell, few newsrooms have settled the matter and left an incongruence in their operations. Namely, letter-writers are identified and checked and commenters could be anyone.

It seems, as Carr suggests, that the time has come for a greater focus on this issue --- not to curtail the liveliness of the Internet but to strengthen its credibility. Indeed, Carr believes that recommendation algorithms are needed to help the situation --- trust-building gauges of our reputations and records as contributors, in essence.

What do you think? Comments welcome, particularly from those who will stand and be counted.

The conventional wisdom that the blogosphere is the publishing equivalent of the Wild West --- anything goes, no sheriff in town, and the like --- is overblown. But the criticism is often apt that there is little consumer protection from veiled self-serving content posing as legitimate information.


Today the U.S. National Advertising Council indicated it intends to require disclosure when blogs are sponsored or product reviews are paid for on sites. It's a venture into regulation that suggests the community isn't fully capable of policing itself but needs some protection to ensure consumer integrity.


The principle is simple: Advertising needs to be identified as such. The problem is that the ruling will impose voluntary guidelines, although complaints about the program can be referred to the Federal Trade Commission.


The New York Times explores the issue today. The release by the council is expected later Tuesday.

We formally launched today our new Community of Interest site at vancouversun.com, a collection of blogs from dozens of local experts and our latest entry into so-called pro-am journalism.

We believe the expertise from our contributors will enhance the quality of our news organization, provide timely writing on relevant issues, widen the conversation in our community on public affairs, and diversify available perspectives.

Many are familiar voices as regular opinion-editorial contributors to the newspaper, but others are new to the scene for us. We were heartened by their willingness to participate regularly as bloggers, and by the range of leadership we're able to launch with, and thank them for committing the energy to the success of Community of Interest.

Some of their work, and some of the comments about it, will be reverse-published into the newspaper to strengthen our local capabilities. We are open to many others joining us --- there are many gaps to fill --- and will be augmenting the roster in the time ahead.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

The Associated Press has been sending signals for months that it intends to get serious about ensuring its content isn't freely shared. Now it has seemingly set a rate card, and it's a strong message to those who would cut and paste its material.

Mashable obtained the rate card,  which takes effect supposedly when bloggers or others use more than five words of an AP story. The charge: $12.50 for those five words.

A sliding scale rises to $100 for the use of more than 250 words. There are some discounts for educational and non-profit sectors.