WBP: Blogosphere slapdown slapback
Our “brothers-in-arms“, Water Buffalo Press, recently chimed in on the D&C’s Tom Tobin’s attempted slapdown of the local blogosphere. After listing some good investigative catches that WBP rightfully takes credit for, they volley back to the D&C:
As far as an agenda, retread or otherwise, what are we to think of the editorial fortitude of a paper that partners in private enterprise with the very same public entities that it supposedly monitors and unbiasedly reports on? Conflict of interest anyone?
Ya think? Well spoken. Of course, there’s a little slap for RT in there as well:
One more thing that differentiates blogs like the WBP and Mustard Street: the absence of advertisements. I have noticed the increasing presence of ads on many blogs but, personally, the WBP will never try to sell anyone anything.
Heyyyy. The nerve! Actually, I think it’s funny that a centrist blog like WBP and a conservative blog like Mustard Street don’t have ads, while progressive RT does. Is this bizarro world? We’re supposed to be the raving socialists, not the free market capitalists! 
I like having ads because 1) we’re super cheap (we’re almost at the cheapest rate blogads.com will allow), and 2) we can highlight and support local businesses cheaply (see #1) while defraying our server costs.  Kind of a win-win there.
Plus when we get photographers’ or artists’ ads, they sure purty up the site a bit.
Related posts:
Well put, btp.
btp -
I highlighted the presence/absence of ads more to contrast the D&C internet site with blogs rather than show differences among local blogs. The D&C content is very much driven by ad revenue and that undoubtedly effects editorial decisions.
For instance I do not believe that Google’s AdSense needs to be displayed on blogs.
As you stated, I doubt your ad revenue is enough to effect what or how you guys write; and, as you also addressed, your ads for local artists is a worthwhile endeavor that I view more as a service than a commercial undertaking.
However, if guys ever start advertising for Pepsi we may have a problem.
Keep up the good work and thank you for recognizing us at the WBP as centrists, that’s what we were hoping for -
I guess if your ads don’t affect your editorial opinions, why do you think it’s true at the D&C? I doubt it’s formal policy there, but a writer who makes a negative-sounding sentence about Wegmans might be asked if they really mean it. It’s not like you’ve got a lot of ads or anything (aside from cross-linking) but wouldn’t one of your writers get flak from another if they said something negative-sounding about Metro Justice?
I’m not sure what the correct solution is. I’m no fan of rules, but it might make sense to publicly announce a set of editorial goals that anyone can point to and keep everyone in line. Editors can use it as leverage to make changes; writers can use it to defend their choices. My take on it: 1. grammar/spelling, 2. no logical fallacies, 3. verify facts, 4. make opinions clear and separate from facts, and 5. when writing in first-person, use the singular not the plural (i.e. “I believe” versus “we at Rochester Turning believe”).
The truth is everyone should have a backbone, whether they write for RT or the D&C, but if you are open-minded, you question your own opinion. And when someone you respect questions it as well, it can tip a fragile balance.
[...] Rochester Turning, the big boy on the local progblog block, has referred to us here at the WBP as “centrists,” while at other times accusing us of portraying a false sense of non-partisanship while forwarding conservative ideals. [...]