Thoughts on editing newspaper bloggers, inspired by this interesting Tim Porter post, to which Lex Alexander steered me.

Anyone who blogs under a corporate banner is agreeing to be edited unless it is specifically agreed otherwise, and probably even then.

Just as reporters face different editing standards than columnists, branded webloggers and their editors might evolve editorial standards of their own, perhaps closer to the rules for columnists than for news reporters.

As a columnist, I would expect to be expected to conform to some standards, if not every standard pertaining to a print writer, and I would write to those standards as often as I possibly could, not least so that when a time came that I felt it important to breach them I would be on firmer ground. I think I could do this without compromising my weblog.

A newspaper weblog will require some planning and an understanding of what each of a newspaper's blogs mean to be, e.g. a news column with analysis or an opinion column or a real estate tip sheet etc. 

Sports coverage by the way is a natural niche for local weblogs, and newspapers should thrive in that arena. A (well-done) blog from the News & Record, written by the ACC basketball beat writer and/or columnist Ed Hardin, could be huge. The guys on press row see so much that the fans can't see, and only a limited amount of that material can ever make the paper. From October through March I'd obsessively visit a UNC hoops blog, and I'd notice and appreciate any ads.

Note to editors: if you add a blog to someone's workload, please pay them for it.  

As to the question of whether journalism can be journalism if itís unedited, the answer is of course it can. Otherwise live broadcasts, to choose one example, aren't journalism. And bloggers do edit themselves. Some are sloppy editors, some are very very good. The key is that the blogger makes the editorial decision. Newspaper blogs that get this ñ even while imposing some degree of brand discipline ñ will be the ones worth reading.