Blocking Bloggers

We've spent our share of time commenting on the fact that you can restrict, but you simply will not be successful in blocking a determined blogger. There's also no better way to exacerbate a public relations problem than daring the B&B crowd.

The rules change, however, when you are a government -- oh, say China -- or if you are a media organization -- in today's case, the Los Angeles Times.

Those darn internets strike again as Slate's website hits LAT square in the face with a memo distributed to suppress the mention of a certain National Enquirer story about a certain Democratic politician. I'll be coy too; not out of fear of the editors but out of respect for the person involved.

This sets up a classic new vs. old media battle, and one that just might be inside the house. It cuts to the heart of what journalism is becoming today.

Is the Enquirer a "legitimate" media in the old-school sense?

Is it appropriate to gag your own staff?

With a multitude of sources, does the LAT do itself a disservice by not participating in the frenzy surrounding the rumors? In a business sense, a huge YES. They are driving readers away to find the story. In a reputations sense, an undecided maybe. If the Enquirer proves wrong, the LAT gets the kudos for holding back. If the rumors are true -- and other news organizations now jumping on this are finding independent verification -- it is another blow to the reputation of the LAT.