Ed's Notes: Never wrestle with a pig . . .

Then, just when online is making headway as something to be embraced, bloggers, twitterers and online editors shoot themselves in the foot.

Given the "if it's wrong, we'll just pull it" nature of online writing – where once we'd have to check and recheck before going to print – many writers start shooting way before the target is in place. Twitterers, too – only they do it with pathetic English.

Seems we get hold of a story and – without checking – publish, forward and Twitter. We even pass on daft e-mails without checking their "urban legend" status first (www.snopes.com is where to do it). This can be extremely damaging, to people and to companies. And it's irresponsible.

I wonder if anyone realises that publishing electronically requires the same basic adherence to the law, responsibilities and courtesies that print does? Have we come this far with our "freedoms" that we're willing to ignore people's Constitutional rights to get "hits"?

What are we, a bunch of cyber junkies looking only to show potential advertisers how many hits we get or how many Twits follow us? I really believe there should be a code of ethics that all bloggers, Twitterers and online writers and editors subscribe to; with a "certificate" that shows marketers HOW we got our hits. Start a racist/sexist/homophobic row, and you're going to get hits. Does this help the marketer, who is shown only the quantity and not the quality of the site visitors?

Back in 2007, blogger Tim O'Reily drafted a Code of Conduct, where it was suggested every site that has blogs or online comments should carry a logo that indicates their adherence to the basic principles of decency and honesty. I looked online to see if the draft has been updated since then, but found no evidence of it. I did, however, find several pieces about responsible online writing and blogging, all of which would circumvent the issues the SABC board members had to deal with last week.

One of O'Reily's suggestions was: "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person." Anonymity takes care of that one nicely, and many feel free to get rid of their frustrations at others' expense because they're protected by anonymity. Of course, we get around that by practicing another of O'Reily's suggestions: "Ignore trolls: We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog [site], as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them - 'Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it'. Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them."

Bloggers (both paid and unpaid), Twitterers and online writers have tremendous power to do both good and bad with their writing. When it comes to wanting ad revenue from your site, though, you'd best be doing no harm.

Take a look at our InBriefs for a quick snap of what's happening in the industry. Then there's the new Mastercard Survey which indicates that South Africans are maintaining "discretionary spending"; and a fabulous piece on an ad from King James that really isn't an ad at all . . .

Enjoy!

Dianne