A pet peeve around here is the deterioration in the ability of words to actually
communicate a shared meaning. One annoying symptom is the increasing use of what
I call inflected reiteration to help the listener understand the speaker’s meaning.
Examples: “She’s his girlfriend girlfriend.” “We’ll, it’s not work work, but .. .”
“That movie was bad bad.” Or, “Those aren’t fact facts.”
and answers in the affirmative (that is: “yes yes”).
Craig’s reasoning includes observations such as:
“What about MIPTC? Yes, it provides a vehicle for people to get to know
me without having to meet me, and I suspect under that definition qualifies
as advertising. Somewhat suprisingly it has resulted in clients.”
“Subscriptions and advertising pay for the people that bring us news and
opinion.”
“It would be difficult to identify an altruistic blog, with no ax to grind. I’m not
sure I could.”
With all due respect to my highly-respected web-colleague, none of the above makes
a weblog “advertising advertising” [unless, perhaps, the weblog is built, written and
maintained by >
someone other than the Editor-Proprietor]. Like a good thesaurus, a
good lawyer or writer helps advance communication by using words precisely — which
includes recognizing that some synonyms have the same meaning in certain contexts
but not others. [That “all B is A” rarely means that “all A is B.”]
Calling weblogs advertising can only confuse the meaning of both terms. As viewed
by Craig in his post, I believe weblogs should more precisely be deemed publicity, or
used, and I can see nothing to gain from blurring the concepts. We don’t want to have
to explain “Well, Ms. Bar Counsel, my weblog is advertising according to MIPTC, but it’s not
of goods, services, companies and ideas, by an identified sponsor.” Craig’s definition would
make most of the words ever written or spoken “advertising.”
update (June 9, 2005 11 PM): In a post today, I’ve gone more deeply into
Conduct.