TPM Reader JM pipes up on the Yglesias story …
As an in utero blogger, I’m watching L’Affaire Yglesias with acute interest. Institutionally supported blogging is an increasingly common model, yet there seem to be no rules on how far bloggers can go in crossing their home institution (if at all).
I’m trying to imagine what would happen if a New York Times blogger accused the Pulitzer committee of promoting “hyper-timid bullshit.” What if a magazine-affiliated blogger like Drum or Sullivan said that about a sister publication?
Of course my inclination is to push for as much blogger freedom as possible. But as institutional affiliations become more common, blogging may lose some of the free-wheeling style that made it popular to begin with. It’s a tricky balance to strike, and I’m not sure I know the answer. But I’m thinking very hard about it…
I actually don’t think some trans-institutional system is possible or even desirable. Different kinds of publications, different kinds of institutions will chart their own choice, with their institutional credibility falling or rising accordingly.
