Maybe that’s the proper forum for someone like Jonah Bloom.

Here’s Rothenberg’d link: http://www.randallrothenberg.com/

Giff had it right when he said, “Rather than try to put put humpty dumpty back together, maybe it is time to pop the myth of objective journalism up on it’s pedestals and call it as it is.”

For another journalist’s take on this discussion check out, “The Road from media Ethics to Information Anarchy,” by PC Magazine’s John Dvorak. Thanks, Ike, for sending me the link:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2184130,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03079TX1K0000584

“The public is the police. Things get even more complex as bloggers and new-media publishers arrive with a mix of news, hoaxes, and singular opinion. There are no standard ethics for any of these people, and despite stupid attempts to create a blogger’s code of ethics, there never will be one except on a publication-by-publication basis. The holier-than-thou old media thinking will fall by the wayside. In new media publications, ethics are demanded by the readers, not the editors.”

Jonah Bloom is a prime mover in this, as his columns often assume a snarkier, hipper tone than say Bob Garfield.

I still say you’re confusing his status as an editor with his status as a columnist. Op-Ed columnists have a lot more play and, even at the New York Times, get away with things that the editorial page writers can’t.

I mean it’s not like Ad Age is a bastion of high-end journalism. It’s a trade pub that for too long reprinted press releases, but is now coming into its own with real reporting and columns like Bloom’s. He mocked the doublespeak of Jaffe’s post because it claimed to be all about transparency yet it was quite opaque. He didn’t personally attack Joe or claim that his company sucked or that Jaffe was a fraud or anything.

@Ike: Yup. Totally agree.

I suspect that’s different at Ad Age, but I know that we have received angry e-mails or calls from readers who want to know why Ragan has a problem with this person or company. This kind of baffles us until we realize that one of our bloggers just skewered someone on their blog. Or we get e-mails about indecency, and then we realize Steve Crescenzo blogged about his testicles again.

So it’s an interesting question, and one I don’t see as much reason to get worked up over because I agreed with Bloom’s critique of Jaffe’s prose … ACK! I do understand what Geoff is saying about providing objective coverage of something before editorializing on it, particularly because that might be (and I dont’ know for sure) the only information the average Ad Age reader receives about the shake up at crayon.

But I know at Ragan it’s almost impossible to coordinate ahead of time our reporting with what is written by our bloggers, who might post about something obscure in the middle of the night. Or they might post something about their body parts, and we aren’t in the business of covering our blogger’s body parts … at least not yet.

Per Ike’s column later (coming in a few hours), then they also have to understand the impact on their masthead. Which in my opinion, given their less than stellar maintenance of the Ad Age 150, their second life coverage and this, makes them the equivalent of the National Enquirer or the New York Post for social media marketing.

You sacrifice quality, and you pay one way or the other. Unfortunately, this marks a significant departure for Advertising Age. But hey, if Murdoch can buy the Wall Street Journal, why not this?

Personally I’d rather demand better standards and hold Advertising Age accountable for its faux paus and hope we don’t have to call it the New York Post of new media. I value a decent authoritative media source that has a little more going for it then an unrestrained “journalist” like Bloom ranting like a 6 year old. I can read Strumpette for that.

Authoritative media still have a voice in this increasingly blended marketplace… The voice of fact checking, balanced points of view.