More Schadenfreude. The National Review has a post up that's simply a serious of quotations from media idiots and idiotarians which have now been proven incredibly stupid. Snicker, snicker, guffaw, guffaw.

InstaPundit links to this Washington Post article about blogging and journalistic ethics. I think it's something we need to be talking about, since a well-known blogger has been nailed for plagiarism. My perspective on blogging ethics is basically this. If I report something as news, state it as fact, then it's true as far as I know. I swear. I make my own opinions clear, so you folks know I'm not unbiased or impartial. A lot of things I say are my own impressions, which I am willing to debate about. I translate a lot of stuff; you'll just have to trust me for accuracy. I do the best I can and often check with my wife if I'm not sure. If I get something from somewhere else, I credit the source. I have been known to fudge details on personal stories, especially with regard to illegal or immoral activities I may or may not have participated in. For instance, I don't give the real name or address of my hash dealer. And I'm probably not as good-looking as I let on.

As for plagiarism, you know I'm already on a personal crusade to nail a plagiarist from our local paper, La Vanguardia. My attitude is don't publish it if you didn't write it, unless you say who the real author is. That's pretty simple, isn't it? I think we can hold bloggers to that minimum.