Thinking back to the early web world I  remember that there were no blogs, and community on the electronic frontier depended on mail lists. If you wanted to homestead there you depended on e-mail.

During my own tentative journeys on what was then being called the “information super highway” I found that personal web sites were rare. They required a good deal of technical knowledge and most newcomers simply lacked the skills necessary to code and maintain them.

The development of blogging platforms like WordPress and Blogger opened the web to a broader public presence. The personal website was within reach of just about everyone, thanks to easy-to-use templates and simple control over how the site looked…background colors and images, type styles and sizes, and arrangement of sections of the blog on the page.

Those first blogs were intensely personal. People wrote about themselves, their daily lives and passions. Considerable attention was paid to the blog’s appearance and each blogger tried for a unique look.

Bloggers had different special interests of course…poetry, child rearing, politics, cooking and so forth…but they also wrote about themselves and the blogs were their way of telling the world what was happening in their lives.

Blogs were the first Facebook pages and it seems to me that the original, highly personal, function of many blogs has been replaced by Facebook pages.

The writers that you read here at the Tucson Citizen are called bloggers…the reason for this we’ll discuss in a subsequent post…  but as they exist, in the context of an e-journalism enterprise, they more nearly resemble newspaper columnists or freelance journalists than they do the earliest bloggers.

At the risk of laboring the obvious the columns you read here are very unlike traditional blogs. Consider: Unlike free blogs they can only be reached in the context of their location in the Tucson Citizen; bloggers have very little control over the appearance of their blogs, except for the banners that head them. There is no control of typeface in the body of the article. In other words these “blogs” are exactly like news stories or opinion columns in a newspaper.

Most significantly, TC.com writers write very little about themselves. We know what interests them, or what their particular social or political concerns are, because those interests and concerns are the subjects of their articles. But if you want to know what they had for dinner or what their vacation plans are you’d better look at their social media pages.

Next: A Community of Bloggers

The earliest example of The Data Port to which I have access is a post on  the Blogger platform dated August 31, 2005. The subject was Gary Hart’s proposal for an Iraq settlement.

The settlement was to include, among other things:

 Organizing a genuine international reconstruction program for Iraq with European and Asian contracting companies involved in competitive bidding for major infrastructure (water, waste management, transportation, communications, etc.) projects;

Establishing a Bank for Iraqi Reconstruction financed by all Western democratic governments to finance national reconstruction; and…

Creating a new Iraq oil company, composed of a consortium of the Iraq Oil Ministry and major international oil producers to build modern production and distribution facilities and allocate revenues fairly to all Iraqis.

(And do you remember when the Bush administration explained that a grateful Iraqi people would repay our costs of their freedom with their oil revenues?)

My comment to this was the slightly snarky comment that this  plan did not strongly insist that since the destruction and suffering in Iraq was largely due to Bush’s bogus war the moral obligation was on us to finance the recovery. Would Western democratic governments rush to finance recovery? Frankly, my dear, I didn’t think they’d give a damn.

Before Blogspot I was a Salon blogger for a year or more, using the RadioLand format. When Salon began to close down its blogging program I moved to Blogger, as did many of the Salon blog family. I’ll be returning to to comment on how this affected the community in my next Retrospective.

On June 9th 2009 I announced another move:

The Data Port has been resident here on Blogspot for a good long time. Sometimes it’s been very active and sometimes it’s just passively occupied this site, too exhausted by the little disturbances of politics to offer much in the way of comment.

As some readers may already have discovered I’ve switched platforms to WordPress and accepted an invitation from TucsonCitizen.comto move over there to take part in building the Citizen’s web-only presence. Will it work? Who knows? But I think, given the rapidly changing face of American journalism, it’s worth taking a shot.

The “beta” site is not, according to Editor Mark Evans, a beta in the true sense but only a kind of holding position while extensive redesigning goes on. A good thing, too, since the present site is uglier than a junkyard dog. But, hey, it’s my dog now, so don’t kick it around.

Having lived with the beast for some years now I think I’m entitled to say that it still needs a redesign, although “junkyard dog” may be harsh.

Next: When a blog is not a blog.

Ads for miraculous Snake Oil cures are a bad journalistic practice. Is it really responsible to run boiler-plate ads disguised as “information pieces” or “news stories.” I don’t believe so.

On February 19 three such ads appeared in the Arizona Daily Star.

The first, occupying a half page of A14, asked the question, “Could this tiny pill put your doctor out of business?” Apparently not, as a disclaimer running along the bottom of the ad read:

“These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat,cure or prevent any disease. Results may vary.”

Well, I suppose so. But if you call toll free they will send you a sample.

The Second ad opened with the bold headline, “FDA Warnings may have saved my life.”

The pitch here is that certain commercially available antacids have dangerous side effects that can be completely avoided by taking “Aloecure” to balance stomach acid.

The  small print disclaimer at the bottom reads:

“These statements have not been evaluated by the food and drug administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The individual portrayed in this story is fictional. Aloecure is not a drug. If you are currently taking a prescription drug you should consult your doctor before use. For the full FDA warning please consult http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm213307

The third ad, which has appeared more than once recently, doesn’t actually offer a medicine but rather information about a low level laser procedure that promises “To help almost every health problem ever experienced by a human being.”

The disclaimer?

No medical treatment claims made or implied. Products are sold for veterinary use. Your results will vary.

Nearly ten years ago the issue of preposterous snake oil ads came up and I wrote what follows in the Desert Leaf. I doubt I could make myself any clearer now than I did then.

My morning paper has become my medical advisor, promising miracle cures for whatever ails me from joint pain and tobacco addiction to the heartbreak of erectile dysfunction.

Full page ads offer a three month supply of  cures or balms that have (gasp) completely escaped the notice of the medical profession. Their ingredients are absolutely guaranteed to be natural and efficacious and there’s a money-back deal if  I’m unhappy or unrelieved. Just return the unused portion for a complete refund!

How do I know these wonders work, or that they’re safe, or that they won’t go to war with other medications that I might be taking? Well, there are testimonials.

Mr. JB of Dismal Seepage Nebraska writes: “Your wonderful product has transformed my life, blessings on you.”  That sort of thing.

Most important, of course, is the fact that these advertisements appear in the daily paper, the publisher of which has assured us of journalism’s commitment to community service and the fearless defense of truth. Surely  newspapers wouldn’t publish false, misleading, or possibly injurious advertising would they?

Of course they would, but it’s not their fault  The defense of truth doesn’t extend to the copy in the ads.  You see there’s this “Chinese Wall” that protects the reporting and editorial side of the newspaper business from influencing, or being influenced by, the folks on the business side. The right hand never knows what the left hand is doing.

This is supposed to guarantee  an independent  press. It is also a convenient way  for the news and editorial folks to dodge responsibility for outrageous advertising while simultaneously reaping its financial benefits.

Newspapers that publish snake oil advertising  do journalism a disservice. Rightly or wrongly these ads tend to pick away at readers’ belief in the reliability of everything they read in the paper.

Worse, this advertising is aimed at people who are desperate to relieve their arthritis pain, or lose weight, or recover their “vigah.” They may not be able to afford regular medical attention, or be embarrassed to discuss intimate physical details, but whatever the situation they are natural targets.

The defense of this sort of ad generally has two parts.

The first part argues that everyone knows  the pretty girl in the ad doesn’t come with the convertible. Readers are smart enough to know that, and they won’t be taken in by outlandish claims.

But they are taken in by such claims, which is exactly why the nostrum hucksters pay for full page ads. They know such ads work.

The second defense is the “reasonable care” defense, which argues that although ad copy is looked at,  there just isn’t time to do the detailed investigation of every piece of copy..

Where should papers draw the line?

Well, why not draw the line at camera-ready copy that promises miracle cures?

At least make a phone call to check. An ad in the Arizona Daily Star, for a product called “Joint Ease CMO,” recently guaranteed arthritis sufferers pain-free movement in 10 days. This was slyly contrasted to a doctor’s prescription for a “number of complicated and expensive therapies that only result in slow or partial recovery.”

This wonder concoction was unknown to the local Arthritis Foundation.

If some poor doofus buys a convertible and finds it doesn’t attract beautiful women at least his disappointment will be softened by the fact that he has a very nice car.

The man or woman who is persuaded to hazard both money and health by literally swallowing substances that at best may simply not work and at worst may have unknowable physical consequences is out either money or health. Possibly both.

What strikes me as odd about the continued appearance of ads like this is that responsible people at the Star used to know better.

In June of 1996 the Star published an ad for a weight loss product, a “Triple Medical Breakthrough,” that was supposed to blast  off up to 49 lbs. in 29 days. A number of readers took exception to  the ad, which seemed preposterous on the face of it but far too alluring to the desperate.

Reporter Laura Brooks investigated and found that the claims made were balderdash.

The Star published her story and Managing Editor Bobbie Jo Buel was quoted as saying, “In one sense the ad is laughable. It’s just so outrageous in its claims. But on the other  hand, if any thinking person knows it’s not true, then why did we take the ad?”

A good question then, a good question now.

Maybe the ads are run for their entertainment value. I loved the  August 21^st ad for Ultimate Desire Testosterone Releaser. The active ingredient in this product is said to be found naturally in the human body, in meats, and in “the pollen of the massively erect Scotch Pine tree.”

Massively erect? Gosh I wish I’d written that!