It seems like one of our Northern blogizens is having a little trouble with some comments he made on his blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed.

According to StarTribune.com

Lawyers who filed the suit say that Web logs and other new media should be held to the same standards of accountability as traditional media and journalism. Brodbkorb, a former operative for the Minnesota Republican Party, pledges to protect his source and to keep his website going.

The suit alleges that Brodkorb, citing an unnamed source, defamed the St. Paul-based public relations firm New School Communications when he posted a claim that New School had become publicly critical of the congressional campaign of Coleen Rowley only after Rowley rejected a contract with the firm.

Despite being told that New School does not perform political campaign work, Brodkorb, the suit says, continues to make the claim, even though his source "may, in fact, be a fabrication."

Held to the same accountability as MSM? You mean like Jason Blair, the New York Times, Dan Rather, 60 Minutes? How about the media lying to us by declaring Al Gore the 'projected winner' before the polls closed? I can see why this is so important. Let's not forget how a person can "anonymously" accuse somebody of sexual harrassment. No chance for slander to happen there? Ah, but those are exceptions to the rule, right?

But, as in the case of this blogger, if given the opportunity to refute what the blogger in the commentary section of the said on the same site that the innacuracies were made, it should be held to the same standards as the MSM.

What makes the blogger different than the MSM is that we don't have the luxury of already having the people's trust. We have to earn it, whereas, the major media already has it and is losing the people's trust. A blogger has to work their way into the hearts of his/her readers and gains their respect by being honest.

Secondly, anybody can have a website. It's affordable, even free, the only thing necessary is access to the internet. Starting a newspaper is not as accessible and a television station is out of the average Joe's reach. Should somebody wish to refute a website, one could always create their own website. By utilizing their free speech, refute accusations made against them.

Finally, the average blogger does not have the means to fight a lawsuit filed by a company. Has the comments of this blogger hurt the company by costing the company sales? Can the company prove that?

As usual, I'm more concerned about the slippery slope than I am about a potential lie. I do not condone slander, lies, untruthfulness, but these are also often truths or lies in the eye of the beholder. Should Haliburton be allowed to sue all the people on the internet that suggest corruption between them and the Bush administration? Should Ozzy sue people for saying on the internet that he bit the head off a bat? There are untruths being said everyday. Those that choose to knowingly spread mistruths face inescapable consequences, even if a lawsuit never happens. When a person lies, his credibility goes down.

Instead of a lawsuit, New School might serve their own purposes better by refuting the accusations against them on their own existing website. A lawsuit has only brought more light on the accusations against them and elevated Minnesota Democrats Exposed to a higher and more popular status. Further more, New School has brought more negative exposure on theirselves with this lawsuit, an example? BLOIS (Olsen)

Congratulations New School, your public relations concerning this matter is an example of how to bring shame and controversy on your own company with this lawsuit. Why on earth should any company or person utilize your service when you successfully brought more attention to accusations made against you, and brought undesirable attention to your company? Imagine that, a Public Relations company being involved in a negative story? One has to wonder, who hurt New School more, MDE or New School?

Football!!!!!!

Yeah, I missed out on this season of week by week predictin, as I said before, it was a very, very, challenging year.

Saturday, Jan. 7

Washington at Tampa Bay 4:30 ABC

Washington has been hot and Tampa Bay has struggled lately. What concerns me the most is the how the Skins played certain teams. Defeated Arizona 17-13 and despite having a playoff spot on the line, nearly lost to an beat up Eagles team that has been blown away in more than one game this year. Tampa had a playoff spot already sealed up and still took care of business. I have to believe that the Skins are not a team that can seal the deal in a big game. Tampa can. Skins walk the Plank, Buccs sail on.

AV~PICKs Buccs 35 Skins 17

Jacksonville at New England 8:00 ABC

Jags have looked (Darth Vader voice on) IMPRESSIVE (Darth Vader Voice off) this year and really got the wrong seeding. New England wasn't impressive to start the season and are under-seeded. Jacksonville had too good of a year to draw a team this good in the first round. Jaguars growls for the last time, Patriots prepare for war in INDY.

AV~PICKS Patriots 37 Jags 10

Sunday, Jan. 8

Carolina at N.Y. Giants 1:00

Black Catz got Delhomme, Army Antz got Manning. Not that Manning, the inexperienced Manning. Army Antz are a solid team, but inconsistencies don't win playoff games. Black Catz start playoffs Purrrrrfect, Army Antz hibernate for winter

AV~PICKS Panthers 27 G.I. ANTS 23

Pittsburgh at Cincinnati 4:30

Two weeks ago, this pick was easy. Cincinnati would have got the nod. The play of both teams the past two weeks makes this an easy pick... Steelers ride the bus into next week, Bengals become Kittens, Patriots change itinerary.

AV~PICKS Steelers 34 Bengals 24

§☺☻♥♦♣♠•◘○◙♂♀♪♫☼ º¿º

And a bit of wackiness...

Don Hagen brought a bit of his humor to my attention and now it's time for me to pass it on....

THE SATIRICAL POLITICAL BELIEFS ASSESSMENT TEST

Not bad Don, Not bad at all......