Firstly, I am of the opinion that online journalistic standards (OJS) are held in a lower form of regard in comparison to the print/copy – older – journalistic standards – both of which incorporate the highest regard for ethics, and neither of which should evidence a difference from the other.
Secondly, I believe that OJS are easier to ‘dismiss’ because of the vast amount of people that consider themselves publishers. Users tweeting, using facebook, writing blogs, and publishing to the web are arguable more prone to fall victim to such instances as poor ethical values in regards to OJS versus professionals practicing the older more systematic approach via journalistic standards.
However my argument revolves largely around the ease-ability, in the sense that it’s ‘easier’ to public material via the computer – opening up possibilities for libel and defamation of character, false light, distortion and a number of other torts – because it’s ‘easier’ (in theory) to just copy and paste, along with numerous other functions to claim work as your own or fabricate, or fictionalize.
You’re absolutely right. There’s a basic feeling by many that any content on the web is “free” for anyone to use, which as you point out, is an abuse of content and copyright. There are efforts to better protect proprietary content, but it’s going to take a while before there are consistent standards – and quite honestly, some copy right abusers who pay the price via legal system or fines.