I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense. What about people who are paid to blog? What are they? The fact is, if one has a financial interest in the t

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense. What about people who are paid to blog? What are they? The fact is, if one has a financial interest in the topics one is writing about in a journalistic context--whether on one's own unpaid blog or as a paid employee of a newspaper--it is considered a strong ethical practice to disclose such conflicts upfront. In some cases, they may be required by the FTC (ask the weight loss splog industry). Also, the point about reporters and bloggers having opposing interests is silly. Reporters add value by thoroughly researching a story, not just quoting people who blog. They do not merely facilitate the public quotation of as-yet-unblogged thoughts (nor is everyone who is news- or quote-worthy a blogger). If anything, blogs help reporters discover potential sources with interesting ideas and specialized knowledge. So the idea that journalistic ethics only apply to paid reporters is an after-the-fact justification to facilitate the outcome Winer wants to see for his friend. Arrington can't hide from the conflict. If he writes extensively about his investments, it's an unfair advantage to those companies. If he avoids writing about his investments to avoid a conflict, it's an unfair disadvantage to those companies. There's nothing wrong with self-interested blogging--some of the best investment analysis on Chinese reverse mergers comes from Muddy Waters, where the principals typically have short positions in the stocks they cover, which are disclosed up-front. The idea that Arrington--or Silicon Valley generally--is somehow exempt from these ethical guidelines is nonsensical.