@Simon Even if that is the real reason under the party line, rule number one is that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, no matter how “flexible” they seem.

I do, however, think it’s important to note that ethics goes beyond disclosing potential conflicts of interest. In my post, I was not only concerned with the possibility of a conflict of interest and the disingenuous remark about not having a “financial stake” in DP but also was concerned that Michael Arrington had miscategorized his financial support of DP as a “donation” to a “charity” when it was not.

His comment on my blog doesn’t really address this and he has not yet responded to my list of questions, one of which is:

“When you posted about the donations being made, did you know that DataPortability was neither a ‘charity’ nor a tax-exempt, non-profit organization? If so, why did you choose to characterize it as such instead of accurately explaining the situation?”

I think the standards bloggers are held to in terms of accuracy are just as important as the standards bloggers are held to in terms of disclosure. After all, if bloggers (especially those who are prominent) don’t feel the need to report things accurately, how can the blogosphere ever expect to be looked upon as a legitimate and trustworthy news source?

As such, any blogger truly interested in being ethical should obligate himself or herself to:

1. Doing a reasonable amount of homework to ensure that he or she is reporting something accurately.
2. Reporting accurately.
3. Issuing corrections or clarifications when something was reported inaccurately or in a fashion that was potentially misleading or unnecessarily ambiguous.