The perception of [blogs], as illustrated by the show, is that they are quick to respond but lack the ethics and rules that journalists play by.Every blogger is his/her own editor. That makes it difficult to toe the line of ethics, as I've touched on before. It's just too easy to write whatever you're thinking, and hit the "publish" button and share those unedited thoughts with the world. I'm so accustomed to this ease that I tend to have trouble writing a journal entry when Blogger is down and I can't use its post form. It's nice, but it's also dangerous, and I think many of us, especially those of us who are 1) newer to the scene and 2) unpublished, are still adjusting.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Ethics and blogging
Blogging was part of the plot of a recent episode of The West Wing, apparently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
One has to question the definition of "Ethics" here. First we have a very public event reported. Had a journalist been their, especially an opposition journalist, it would have been picked up. That a blogger was serves to open up the story.
so, here we have the "off the record" moment. "Off the record" strikes me a method of source protection. Even a hostile source can be a useful source, so if said person says "Off the record" you respect that if you ever want the source to talk to you again. This isn't ethics, it protecting your bread and butter. If you get a reputation for burning people, your stories will tend to dry up.
Penny Arcade actually strikes me as a good example. Tycho's rants seem pretty off the cuff, but he had indicated several time that he is constrained by the terms of his sources. He's more than just a joke writer with inside access. He's an industry jounalist, and this is his income. There's still a sense of the blog about what he does, but he has to play it straighter.
This doesn't amount to ethics so much as it amounts to not shooting oneself in the foot. The definition of "ethics" seems rather self serving coming from a mainstream media source.
Think about my recent Porter Goss/CIA memo post. Is the mainstream media really being ethical by spinning the document to serve obvious polical agendas? Should they be forgiven because the document is spun both ways by differing sides? I find it hard to condemn a private citizen for being hasty when the "news" consitantly embarks upon disinformation for political purposes and market share.
I don't agree with the actions of the "blogger" character. I think they can be seen as "emotion posting" and may even represent a tort. It depends on whether a public official has a reasonable expectation of privacy under those conditions. It also speaks to a level of integrity, if the blogger agreed to go off the record.
On the other hand, if a public official called me at home and stated he was off the record, and didn't wait for me to agree before launching into an angry tirade, I'd sure as hell give a word for word account of his idiocy. Judging solely by the review of the episode, that's how it went down.
That kind of behavior shows a remarkable lack of ethics on the staffer's part. We assume we have the right to vent our feelings in anyway we choose. To an extent we do, as long as we are willing to face the consequences.
Sam
Unfortunately I can't find any good links to back this up, so if no one recalls what I'm talking about, I suppose I'll dig a little harder and find some. But I can go on with the long and short of it.
Revolving around Kerry's service record, there was a small headline out there for awhile about a series of weblogs popping up, penned by or interviewing vets that served along with Kerry, or possibly those that knew him well. I don't remember all the finer details, but I do recall that this was around the time that true "schooled journalists" took a jab at Drudge, for instance, who some say "blogs" on his site, as well as saying a few things about those that were attacking Kerry. Meanwhile, the Kerry Campaign got disgruntled over it. But the blogs were taken for what they were by apparently a large enough audience that they got a bit of their fifteen minutes of fame.
Getting to the point, The West Wing is a liberal show, made by liberals, acted out by liberals (Martin Sheen has, in the past, said if he was "really the president" that he wouldn't have "done this or that that Bush did".) and played on a predominantly liberal network.
Maybe it isn't obvious to everyone that the most of the powerful media is slanted towards the Democratic party. It isn't necessarily the stories they tell that make them so, but the stories they don't tell. But that's a whole other rant, there.
Blogs hit a low blow to the Kerry campaign during the election. Call me a right-wing nut-job, but I think this episode had nothing at all to do with the ethics of bloggers. I think it was the attempt by a liberal show to jab back at the bloggers who kicked Kerry's ass in the campaign.
There really are people out there watching the West Wing, wishing Martin Sheen WAS the president. Maybe they're hoping to coerce those kinds of people into casting down the real blogs out there.
Liberals, for the most part, own the media. But they can't own individuals. They can't own blogs. And if you can't own 'em, then why not try and turn people off to them?
-AJ
I second AJ.
I just didn't have any solid recollections of a REASON the Left might feel the need to attack bloggers.
This raises the question of where blogs lean. Are they 50/50 or predominately on one side?
Sam
Good points, both.
As far as the politics of bloggers, I have no idea. You'll note that the majority of the stuff I read (the stuff that mentions politics at all) is liberal. I didn't purposefully choose liberal-leaning blogs to read; it just so happened that I came across them, liked the writing, and stuck around. So my blogroll can hardly be considered representative. (I did tell AJ recently that he should have a blog, so I'd have a conservative viewpoint to read. He keeps saying no, though ;P)
So I really don't know. I'd be interested to see some numbers. I hadn't thought about the possibility of the blogosphere being predominantly conservative, or liberals wanting to destroy the credibility of bloggers. It's really interesting, because many of the "liberal" blogs I read have claimed that blogs are the only way to get some news stories out.
Here I must point out that I am completely oblivious to "the news". I read articles on the web for my news, and that's it. No TV or newspaper here. So I don't know what stories are and aren't being told, or who dominates the media.
So yeah. Thanks for the comments :)
It isn't so much that the "blogsphere" is split 50/50 or 30/70 or anything like that.
This kind of ties into my "It's about what the news DOESN'T tell you that makes them predominantly left-leaning" comment from before.
When you have a monopoly on the major news networks, you control what is seen and what is heard - you influence the public by reporting what you want them to see. Make a big deal out of Kerry's concession speech and how presidential it was, don't make much mention Bush's kind words at the Clinton Library opening - that sort of thing.
Point is, Fox News came in, and obviously it's more right-leaning, but after decades of left-leaning media, maybe they ARE a bit more fair in away? That's, of course, another rant entirely. But, clearly, Fox News is bad news for the other networks. Something you won't notice if you don't watch much news is that Fox almost always covers all of Bush's speeches live while other networks don't. The other networks will ALWAYS play Clinton live, and always did, but then, Fox News does that too. People tune to Fox News because they actually do get to see EVERYTHING and not just bits and pieces.
The thing with the internet is this. No one owns it and none control it, and anyone can find anything on it.
It doesn't matter that most blogs are written by angsty liberal college-goers. Because here on the internet, you can find those conservatives that NBC, CBS, and ABC never wanted you to see.
So, it isn't so much that it's more fair or balanced on the internet. It's just that there are things you can read that the major networks don't offer you. If you know where to look.
To the long-time liberal media, the internet (blogs and sites like Drudge's inparticular) is utter chaos. They may be more than willing to rush out faked documents on Bush's guard service, but they can't do shit to mute the hundreds of criers on the internet proving those documents false.
The internet, to current media standings, is like third party candidates were meant to be to the political system. Something totally unexpected, with the ability to reach people and educate them not just on what the monopolies would desire you to hear. Something that just isn't another "news company", but a breath of fresh air and a new point of view. It's dangerous to them. And they know it.
-AJ
Post a Comment