Over the years, I've dedicated this space to reporting about news and issues that bear mostly on reading with a little informed (I hope) commentary attached. I've never written the column in a vacuum, but with the knowledge that it must pass through the hands of hawk-eyed editors and must meet the standards of serious readers who make books a part of their lives.

But this is just part of the standard framework of journalism as it has been practiced for a century or so.

We conform to the rules and tastes of the various editors, and we respect our audiences by giving them the truth. When the readers have a gripe, they know where to find me to tell me about it.

If I make a mistake, the newspaper requires me to correct it in print as soon as possible. Then, I'm horse-whipped at noon in Market Square.

But horse-whipping, like many newspaper traditions, is falling victim to modern times. The world is changing, and perhaps so am I. I'm contemplating joining the limitless world of the blogger as my space in print recedes.

Ah, the blogosphere, where hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of writers, some of them qualified, scribble their observations, opinions and information, some of it phony, daily.

I've been poking around this virtual neighborhood for some time, confining my gazing to those of literary interest or "lit-blogs." And since there are so many of them, a glance or two is all the time I can devote to reading them.

Plus, I'm just too suspicious of this cyberspace territory that seems to be a modern version of Pithole, Pa., the rickety, raw oil boomtown of the 19th century.

Unlike the established media, there are doubts about blogs' accountability, dependability and durability.

Also, outside of their mothers, it's hard to figure out whom these bloggers are targeting.

My blog, however, would be run through the Post-Gazette editing grinder intended to force out rumor, mistakes, innuendo, obscenity, gossip and speculation -- the very stuff that blogs are made of -- and keep the truth and correct grammar.

Sounds pretty boring, doesn't it? Could my dull blog attract any readers in a brave new world of snarky opinions and wild claims?

I'm tame in comparison. For example, after writing another story last year on the widespread concern about threats to our privacy rights, I heard the cry, "Not another column on the Patriot Act!" Recent events have borne out my concerns about this legislation, but, gee, I tried to make it interesting.

I've also kept an eye on the National Endowment for the Arts under its recently appointed chairman, Dana Gioia, who seems quite sincere yet unimaginative in his efforts to promote reading and poetry.

There's been little or no feedback to columns like those, but I don't write them because I'm lonely and want mail. I do it to let you know what's happening.

The most response on any subject of 2005 came from a column on Edward Klein's embarrassing (for him) biography of Hillary Clinton, when angry readers ignored the facts and took out their political frustrations on me, a few on the phone.

Bloggers aren't exposed to that sort of accountability. If and when I turn to writing a blog, I promise to stick to the traditional standards of accuracy, proper grammar, attribution, but I'll leave out my phone number.

Writing for the public is a fickle business. I was never fired for making mistakes, but I was fired once, long ago, for writing the truth, by an editor who put the reputation of a prominent citizen above the job of a newspaper. It taught me an important lesson:

Write about things that are true, and don't apologize. Sure, it can seem boring now and then, but you can sleep at night.