interesting piece in the SMH this morning suggesting that bloggers and ‘internet pundits‘ are ‘exerting a “disproportionately large influence” on society….. “They’re not representative of the larger audience, but what they’re saying does matter” . Makes me wonder about the ethical responsibilities for people with disproportionately loud voices. Then makes me wonder whether, as there is such a low barrier to entry to blogging (or being ‘active’ on the internet) and voices are (in theory) so easily refuted… perhaps there is no such responsibility? Not sure. Thoughts anyone?