I'm still trying to puzzle this out.
After interviewing a blogger apparently on the proviso that his anonymity would be preserved, a journalist later decides to out that same blogger on what seems to be a personal slow news day.
Or was old fashioned jealousy at the root of this unethical outing?
This is James Massola in justification mode:
"As I wrote on August 7 after interviewing Jericho (preserving his anonymity) about the piece that sparked debate: "Across Twitter a conversation bubbled and crackled as journalists and readers debated the merits of reportage from the campaign trail. Such a public conversation about journalism was unimaginable five years ago. If for no other reason, the incident demonstrated why Twitter, and blogs, matter."
So why did I out Grog if I thought he should keep blogging?
As a prolific blogger and tweeter, Jericho was putting information in the public domain to provoke discussion and debate. It might have been a hobby, but by engaging directly via Twitter with dozens of journalists, Jericho and his views became part of the public debate - and in an age in which the dissemination of information has been democratised, his scribblings had an influence."
Whatcha been drinking Jimmy?
