Phil Gyford has a really interesting post on his blog about the nature of blogging and how some blogs may need to accept more responsibility for the accuracy of their postings. He picks out BoingBoing for special criticism, mainly because it's one of the better-known blog-publications. Phil's point is that, as some blogs become more popular, they can't plead that their work is valid journalism and also deflect criticism of the inaccuracy of their posts by saying they're a blog and therefore those faults are okay. More interesting still, though, are the comments attached to Phil's posting. There's one poster, Cowicide, who really does need some anger management help and unwittingly demonstrates why BoingBoing no longer accepts comments itself!
You can ping this entry by using http://www.cassidys.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/103 .
Sorry to be picky, but... I think your explanation of my point more accurately defines points that one or two commenters on my post are making, but not what I'm trying to say.
As far as I know, Boing Boing doesn't claim to be journalism, and I wouldn't say it is. My point is that simply by being popular it edges closer towards "publishing" (which is different from "journalism") which entails certain responsibilities for accuracy.
A perfectly accurate correction, Phil. Thanks!