Editable Blogs

The Times looks to see whether or not blogs with editors are really blogs, this after the Sacremento Bee's disclosure that they edit columnist Daniel Weintraub's blog. Many organizations have different approaches, so do edit, some don't. Spokesman Review managing editor says "his bloggers need no editing [since] most have 10 to 25 years of reporting experience and apply the tenets of good journalism to their Web logs." The Dallas Morning News doesn't edit their posts, "We have chosen not to edit posts because we believe the best blog entries are fresh, spontaneous and instant and that we are able to be fresh, spontaneous and instant without jeopardizing this newspaper's standards or this department's goals."

Gothamist would like to take the time to say the title of editor here at on this site only reflects the subject matter, as our typos and logic mistakes should make it very clear there is no real editing going on.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in Arts and Events on September 29, 2003 9:36 AM

Comments [rss]

kenpothestar

you can view and post various stuff at http://www.clickindia.com/ or just make an opinion on something.

kenpothestar

nice piece of work. thanks.

Ken Sands

To clarify: It's not precise to state that there is no editing of blogs at The Spokesman-Review. It is true that the blogs are not edited before they are posted by their authors on our Web site. But the blogs are monitored -- and lightly edited -- by a staff of four Web editors who check on the blogs daily.

Jen

Aw, thanks. My mind is at ease!

Anonymous

Gothamist: I'm sure you've already seen this little tidbit going around but thought it might ease your mind regarding your typos, if not your logic mistakes (which I've never noticed anyway):

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you

can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it out aynawy.

Sterling

Whoops. Wrong post.

Sterling

Ah, yes - it's OK to blacklist Kazan for being a conscientious patriot, but wrong to blacklist real Hollywood communists who were trying to use their influence to undermine the United States Government.

Proven facts: There was a Communist Party of the United States. It received funds and direction from Moscow. Its affiliate in Los Angeles was directly involved in exerting influence over the film industry, working to embed pro-communist, anti-capitaliist propaganda in American films, for the purpose of eventually affecting a violent overthrow of the United States Government.

As hard as it may be for vivacious, well-paid young 21st century yuppies to believe, there was a good 30 or 35 year stretch following World War II during which world communism was on the march, and capitalism in retreat. We very nearly lost the Cold War. The battle against Hollywood communists was a front in that war, and Elia Kazan fought on YOUR side. He should have gotten a medal.