The enforcement would be through an instant loss of credibility. There's so many bloggers that each niche may one day have an entire news industry similar to what exists today. So something unfounded will be outed very quickly, and the loss of credibility and attention will be extremely swift.
I think the code of ethics exists, between when this actually occurs today and the law on defamation. But very soon it will not be appropriate for bloggers to use a bunch of weasel words to post rumor as a fact because there will be enough bloggers posting actual fact in each niche that there won't be room for unfounded rumors.
Interesting discussion. I think it might be a wise idea for someone to come up with a “Society of Responsible Bloggers” similar to the “Society of Professional Journalists,” which does a lot on ethics / responsbility involved with publishing. Journalists don't have to be members, but those who do receive the benefits of membership (network, education etc.). Similarly bloggers wouldn't have to be members, but those who do can get a badge for their blog and people woudl then know they subscribe to certain standards.
But regardless of this, it behooves everyone who publishes to think about the power of putting something in print and to think about their own personal limits.
That's what I said. You lose your community's trust, you lose your community. It's more self-regulating than a code of ethics would be.
Plus, I don't want to get sued or be unfair to others. That keeps me in check, big time. Even if I wrote about a particular person (rarely, if ever) I make sure what I'm saying is undoubtedly true.
I love what you wrote, “Life has a code of ethics.” Such a good point, really.
I don't know if this is true. News spreads quickly in the blogosphere, especially through social media. If TechCrunch publishes something untrue, people won't find out right away. There will be a loss of credibility, but much of the damage could be done by then. I think that's what Tony V. was trying to get at?
I don't need for something to be written or approved to realize that what I say may have consequences in other people's lives. At the end of the day, is all about being at peace with ourselves.
The problem is that the majority of bloggers do not write facts, but opinions. I would never dream of writing lies about anyone, famous or not, but I do sometimes write negative reviews. Where would this come in a code of conduct?
When it comes to a review of something, isn't the truth somewhat subjective? I think that's why bloggers write a lot of opinion and why people are mad at them for putting their opinions in print. I don't think it's defamation just because you write your opinion online, as long as you are not straight-up lying.
People have been sharing their opinions forever; they just have the opportunity to reach more people now thanks to the internet.
Because what's good or bad is democratic. If every journalist follows his own morals, it would be total anarchy. That's why codes exists, to mantain a certain order.
To be honest, I don't think a code of ethics for blogging should exist as a “legal document”, and I don't think it will either. But I do see journalism and blogging as equally responsible regarding what one publishes.
If you look at PTrunk's post today, she links to an urban legend that if you wear a ponytail when running you are more likely to get raped (or something like that). At least 5 people have corrected her in the comments already.
So why do we need a code of ethics – when the community is already policing bloggers (and quickly providing feedback) whenever we mistakes?
I think what farmlanebooks says, “the majority of bloggers do not write facts, but opinions,” is why bloggers and journalists don't have the same responsibility. This is in addition to the inequity in pay and disorganization of bloggers (ie: bloggers own their own web space, where journalists write for other properties like newspapers and magazines).
Bloggers should have to pass a basic competency test. Opinions are one thing, but as it was said before when opinions or rumors are stated as fact damage can be done. Some people do not know the difference between solid facts, and speculation and they spout off about speculation as if it were fact. Just like the news media has to claim that everything is “alleged” until there is a conviction, bloggers need to follow the same rules. If most wreckless bloggers had any assests they would surely be sued, until affected parties start to sue while knowing they will not recieve any real compensation I don't see that a lot will change. For some reason even the most unreliable bloggers/blog sites are very popular, I suppose it is because they fabricate such sensational stories, and they report every rumor even if the source is unverifiable. I do not understand why people continue to read blogs that have a reputation of being false more often than they are accurate. Due to this I can not say that the loss of credibility is a real threat to many bloggers.
For many people, some bloggers' opinions, are facts.
People listen religiously to some bloggers, and they let their thoughts and opinions run their lives. We like to believe we are rational and clever about how we deal with things people say, but we're not, we listen to them too much.
If people are “stupid” or not, it's a whole other topic. What matters is the influence our words have.
If you're one of this bloggers, you have two choices: you can take advantage of it, or you can be responsible. A code of ethics (which i still think it won't exist ever) would lean the scale to the responsibility side.
Thanks for the sweet suggestion Monica. I'm not sure I fully see the value in an organization like the one I described. I really tend to agree with your comments below that community policing is sufficient. I wrote about a related topic here: http://bit.ly/KhSXP
But I wonder if a lot of bloggers would be interested in getting some sort of credential like this.
Great topic, Monica! Tony hit the nail on the head when he said that people need a code of ethics for *entering the public sphere*, and I think that's really the key. Sure, you can equate it to cleaning house and having someone create a method you HAVE to follow, but in the end you and your family are the people most deeply affected by the way you've HAD to clean. That cleanliness doesn't reach past your doorsteps.
Bloggers, on the other hand, and anyone who puts out information for the public to consume have a certain amount of responsibility hefted onto their shoulders when they step into the light. When you choose to address the public you also choose to affect them. And when bloggers take it into their hands to become citizen journalists, break important and worldly news, offer their $.02 on pressing issues, and AFFECT the public they should have to pass through a few ranks. The code of ethics for bloggers doesn't have to be extensive or advanced, but I think there need to be some limits.
Anyway, there's *my* $.02. Good stuff, and great comments.
I'm not sure if I would. I think it would be hard for bloggers to settle on what is ethical and what isn't. If it was a fairly simple code though, it might help a blogger build community and gain trust.
Interesting tidbit: The Chicago Tribune just recently launched a blog network called ChicagoNow. As far as I know, they are not currently asking bloggers to sign the same code of ethics that a traditional journalist would.
What do people think of that? If traditional media outlets see the distinction, there might be something more to this lack of code of ethics for bloggers.
I agree bloggers should be responsible. I think that's what your getting at. I think we are both agreeing that a code of ethics isn't necessarily the right approach.
I think it's interesting that you mention celebrity rumors. I watch shows like E! News and whether they say “allegedly” or not, it seems like they are doing damage to the person's reputation. Most of the time, they say something like, “TMZ is reporting…” when really “reporting” should be in quotations. We see the same thing with those tabloid magazines, of course, yet people take plenty of that information for fact too.
How is blogging different from these technically traditional media outlets? Tabloids have a reputation for perpetuating rumors, yet people still buy and consume them, knowing they should take the information with a grain of salt. Don't blog readers know they should take the information with a grain of salt too?
Where does that stop? Do commenters need a code of ethics too? Should tweeters have a code of ethics? Should you sign a code of ethics when you sign up for Facebook? You could say something equally damaging on any of those platforms too.
It sounds completely ridiculous to me. The whole thing.
Also, the clean house analogy still makes sense to me. On the web, my website is my “house.” Anyone who reads it is my family and my guests. I could have a lot of guests or just a few, but either way, they've chosen to enter my house and let my messiness or cleanliness “affect” them.
The problem with blogs is that some of them report rumors as if they are fact, tabloids or other media at least use a disclaimer. We have been trained to recognize anything using the word “allegedly” as a rumor, no matter how its reported we know that if we run with it and the story is wrong.. “They told us it wasn't verifired as a fact…” Along those lines Many people do not recognize rumors when they read blogs. If a person writes with a factual tone but the story is all rumor how does the reader know the difference.
Tabloids either use a discalimer, make up stories that are so ridiculous that they can't be true, or they use clever wordplay which technically is true(although misleading), or they are reporting something that is mostly true. A lot of bloggers make up stories that are false yet based on bits and pieces of something that might be partly true and that is the misleading part. I can use an example of a blogger who wrote a story about an event that I was a part of which some celebrities were involved. The blogger wrote a whole article that was false and had in fact attributed certain actions to the wrong celebrities (the blogger wrote that one person did a certain thing, when in fact it was a completely different person). From his story I could tell that he did not even attend the event, but rather he had likely heard the story from someone who told it to him wrong… and at the end of the day if you were not there you would have assumed that the blogger was really there and that he was writing about what he had witnessed with his own eyes.
Some of these folks purposely exaggerate or add details to stories just to get more readers by having a so called exclusive story. Folks wants to find a shortcut to fame without putting in the work and getting quality stories. Its one thing to write about your opinion no matter how controversial it may be, that's ok… but to make up “facts” is wrong, especially when it affects the lives of others.
Umm…based on the reporting in traditional media, do you really think they have a code of ethics and bloggers should follow their lead?
People, bloggers and journalists, get credibility and authority by being credible and authoritative. If we have “code of ethics” then we get to debate whether or not someone is following the “code of ethics” rather than looking at the work and deciding if the work is credible and has authority.
Judge my work. Not someone's imposed code of ethics.
When friends ask me how to use Twitter or the rules of blogging, I give them some basic outlines but I always end up saying, “There are no rules!” The Internet and blogging is like the Wild West. Everyone does it a little differently and you will probably find out what works for you or the feedback (positive and negative) that you hear from your community (or you may not ever create a community of readers, maybe that's telling you something there). See where I'm going?
In life, we all have our own set of ethics and rules we probably abide by. I think there are guidelines I follow when blogging, but I would be a little riled up if someone (who would it be?) told me a line of ethics to follow when blogging. Chances are, I am probably following most of them, but that is what happens when you self-publish and aren't paid to blog. So I think there are reasons and parameters to stay within, but even the 'rule breakers' of blogging make it interesting and worthwhile.
Also, what if someone created a code of ethics and many influential bloggers spearheaded the ethics…that's a change to implement. It wouldn't be entirely negative but it might be hard to catch on potentially? Who or how would it be enforced?
I agree this happens, I just notice that even traditional media tends to promote rumors that aren't true. Kate Gosselin was on the Today show and said all rumors about her buying a condo in Maryland aren't true – that she didn't even look at condos. How many people still think she is buying a condo in Maryland? I think traditional media is just as bad, if not worse, than bloggers.
The more I think about it, the less I feel traditional media's code of ethics is very strong or holds much credibility. It basically forces the media to jump through hoops to tell the story they want – that's really it.
I don't think that idea holds up well in a community.
I agree with the “life ethics” argument. You blog within your personal ethics and you attract people who can agree (or at least live with) your personal ethics.
If influential bloggers created a code of ethics, it would probably be a different story, right? That's why they're called “influential” I guess. Whether it's the way things should be or not. The only possible enforcement is through feedback from the community.
I frown on anybody who fabricates stories no matter if they are doing it from their bedroom or the boardroom.
I don't disagree with you, mainstream media does go too far at times, and we all know that rumors make it onto mainstream media outlets as well. But I can say that usually networks and major papers try to verify facts, unless it is some major breaking news story that they all want to report first. I think cases are rare where major media have fabricated stories or report info from extra sketchy sources. Where as bloggers will make up stories or fill in gaps in stories with made up details or from pure hear-say, with no consequences. At least when writers or reporters are found making up stories they are fired and sued.
A new problem that has arisen is when the news media picks up and reports stories from bloggers, that is where I think a large amount of mis-information comes form these days. I find it humorous when I watch the news and they cite a Twitter post or a notoriously scandalous blog as their source…. that should pretty much never happen. I don't see how any editor or producer authorizes a report based on a twitter feed. But as long as they can lay the blame on someone else its all good I suppose.
But again I am not speaking about bloggers who are reporting their opinion about people or events, opinons are fair game.
What you write about in your third paragraph is what I'm talking about. The code of ethics doesn't make major media better – it just makes them jump through loopholes to tell the story they want. ie: According to so-and-so's twitter feed, so-and-sue allegedly did this.
Still a rumor. Still damaging. Still as irresponsible as an individual blogger, but with more reach.
I thin ka lot of news outlets have slipped inthe last 10 years… I think shows like 60 minutes are about the closest thing to strong ethics in the media. I can say that they seem to try to get both sides of their stories, and they let the people in the stories speak for themselves. You can't get much better than that.
But with the drive for ratings and ad sales media has become watered down accoutns of the same stories. I recall when Atlanta had 2 major papers and there was a clear motivation for each paper to be the best since they were competing for readers, but at some point the papers merged and the city was left with one voice that could report whatever, however it wanted.
People often have rules for what they allow in the comments section of their blogs, so right there you've got a small code of ethics started in a very independent way.
I totally see your point in that developing a code of ethics for blogs will only create a snowball effect. And, realistically, enforcing a code of ethics is beyond imagining. I have no idea how it would be done.
So, the realities of creating a “reasonable” code of ethics and actually enforcing it make it near impossible for it to happen. The problem lies in taking at face value the crap that people put out there. And there are times that even the most well-respected people screw up in what they discuss because the speed inherent in the blogging platform removes the impetus to fact check and investigate. You don't have to be bad to be wrong. See here: http://bit.ly/rhF19
I see the validity of both sides of the argument. Thanks for helping me see the other side a little more clearly.
Hey Monica. I don't have enough time to read all the comments, so ignore this if it was already surfaced… but one important aspect of a journalist's code of ethics is mandatory disclosure of any conflicts of interest, whether personal, financial, or otherwise. Beyond disclosure, certain journalism organizations will prohibit reporters from reporting on an industry where they have significant and lasting conflicts, such as family members in the industry.
There is a lot to be said for the “information market” working out those bloggers who don't follow a generally accepted and unspecified set of ethical practices. But there is also a danger in dissemination of biased information that is not disclosed as such. True, those provisions for traditional media may have been more “CYA” than anything else, but it's an important component of information integrity as well.
All of that said, I see no way to implement or enforce a blogger's code of ethics. The web's decentralized structure that makes everyone a player on equal footing gives it both its appeal and its riskiness.
I gave a presentation on this topic last year and concluded for our own credibility we need to blog with some sort of defined standards. I uploaded the Powerpoint if anyone is interested. http://seobyswaby.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/ethi...
I gave a presentation on this topic last year and concluded for our own credibility we need to blog with some sort of defined standards. I uploaded the Powerpoint if anyone is interested. http://seobyswaby.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/ethi...
Monica O'Brien is the Director of Digital at Fizz and author of the book Social Pollination, which helps businesses leverage social media for crazy growth!
Monica O'Brien is the Director of Digital at Fizz and author of the book Social Pollination, which helps businesses leverage social media for crazy growth!
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
The enforcement would be through an instant loss of credibility. There's so many bloggers that each niche may one day have an entire news industry similar to what exists today. So something unfounded will be outed very quickly, and the loss of credibility and attention will be extremely swift.
I think the code of ethics exists, between when this actually occurs today and the law on defamation. But very soon it will not be appropriate for bloggers to use a bunch of weasel words to post rumor as a fact because there will be enough bloggers posting actual fact in each niche that there won't be room for unfounded rumors.
Interesting discussion. I think it might be a wise idea for someone to come up with a “Society of Responsible Bloggers” similar to the “Society of Professional Journalists,” which does a lot on ethics / responsbility involved with publishing. Journalists don't have to be members, but those who do receive the benefits of membership (network, education etc.). Similarly bloggers wouldn't have to be members, but those who do can get a badge for their blog and people woudl then know they subscribe to certain standards.
But regardless of this, it behooves everyone who publishes to think about the power of putting something in print and to think about their own personal limits.
Let's not take ourselves too seriously here. Life has a code of ethics, and adults are accountable for their words and actions.
Read something erroneous, insulting, or offensive? Don't visit the blog, and don't do anything to help the blogger advance in her career.
Write something untrue? Malicious? Stupid? The marketplace will manage you out.
That's what I said. You lose your community's trust, you lose your community. It's more self-regulating than a code of ethics would be.
Plus, I don't want to get sued or be unfair to others. That keeps me in check, big time. Even if I wrote about a particular person (rarely, if ever) I make sure what I'm saying is undoubtedly true.
I love what you wrote, “Life has a code of ethics.” Such a good point, really.
I don't know if this is true. News spreads quickly in the blogosphere, especially through social media. If TechCrunch publishes something untrue, people won't find out right away. There will be a loss of credibility, but much of the damage could be done by then. I think that's what Tony V. was trying to get at?
Interesting idea. I don't know what the code of ethics is for journalists, so it's hard for me to see how this would work.
Maybe you should found it! It would be an awesome organization to be a founder of.
I agree with Tony. And with uncle Ben:
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
I don't need for something to be written or approved to realize that what I say may have consequences in other people's lives. At the end of the day, is all about being at peace with ourselves.
Essentially, every blogger writes within their own morals. Why does the code of ethics need to be there then?
The problem is that the majority of bloggers do not write facts, but opinions. I would never dream of writing lies about anyone, famous or not, but I do sometimes write negative reviews. Where would this come in a code of conduct?
When it comes to a review of something, isn't the truth somewhat subjective? I think that's why bloggers write a lot of opinion and why people are mad at them for putting their opinions in print. I don't think it's defamation just because you write your opinion online, as long as you are not straight-up lying.
People have been sharing their opinions forever; they just have the opportunity to reach more people now thanks to the internet.
Because what's good or bad is democratic. If every journalist follows his
own morals, it would be total anarchy. That's why codes exists, to mantain a
certain order.
To be honest, I don't think a code of ethics for blogging should exist as a
“legal document”, and I don't think it will either. But I do see journalism
and blogging as equally responsible regarding what one publishes.
If you look at PTrunk's post today, she links to an urban legend that if you wear a ponytail when running you are more likely to get raped (or something like that). At least 5 people have corrected her in the comments already.
So why do we need a code of ethics – when the community is already policing bloggers (and quickly providing feedback) whenever we mistakes?
I think what farmlanebooks says, “the majority of bloggers do not write facts, but opinions,” is why bloggers and journalists don't have the same responsibility. This is in addition to the inequity in pay and disorganization of bloggers (ie: bloggers own their own web space, where journalists write for other properties like newspapers and magazines).
Thoughts?
Bloggers should have to pass a basic competency test. Opinions are one thing, but as it was said before when opinions or rumors are stated as fact damage can be done. Some people do not know the difference between solid facts, and speculation and they spout off about speculation as if it were fact. Just like the news media has to claim that everything is “alleged” until there is a conviction, bloggers need to follow the same rules. If most wreckless bloggers had any assests they would surely be sued, until affected parties start to sue while knowing they will not recieve any real compensation I don't see that a lot will change.
For some reason even the most unreliable bloggers/blog sites are very popular, I suppose it is because they fabricate such sensational stories, and they report every rumor even if the source is unverifiable. I do not understand why people continue to read blogs that have a reputation of being false more often than they are accurate. Due to this I can not say that the loss of credibility is a real threat to many bloggers.
Agreed on every thought. But here's the thing:
For many people, some bloggers' opinions, are facts.
People listen religiously to some bloggers, and they let their thoughts and opinions run their lives. We like to believe we are rational and clever about how we deal with things people say, but we're not, we listen to them too much.
If people are “stupid” or not, it's a whole other topic. What matters is the influence our words have.
If you're one of this bloggers, you have two choices: you can take advantage of it, or you can be responsible. A code of ethics (which i still think it won't exist ever) would lean the scale to the responsibility side.
Thanks for the sweet suggestion Monica. I'm not sure I fully see the value in an organization like the one I described. I really tend to agree with your comments below that community policing is sufficient. I wrote about a related topic here: http://bit.ly/KhSXP
But I wonder if a lot of bloggers would be interested in getting some sort of credential like this.
Great topic, Monica! Tony hit the nail on the head when he said that people need a code of ethics for *entering the public sphere*, and I think that's really the key. Sure, you can equate it to cleaning house and having someone create a method you HAVE to follow, but in the end you and your family are the people most deeply affected by the way you've HAD to clean. That cleanliness doesn't reach past your doorsteps.
Bloggers, on the other hand, and anyone who puts out information for the public to consume have a certain amount of responsibility hefted onto their shoulders when they step into the light. When you choose to address the public you also choose to affect them. And when bloggers take it into their hands to become citizen journalists, break important and worldly news, offer their $.02 on pressing issues, and AFFECT the public they should have to pass through a few ranks. The code of ethics for bloggers doesn't have to be extensive or advanced, but I think there need to be some limits.
Anyway, there's *my* $.02. Good stuff, and great comments.
I'm not sure if I would. I think it would be hard for bloggers to settle on what is ethical and what isn't. If it was a fairly simple code though, it might help a blogger build community and gain trust.
Interesting tidbit: The Chicago Tribune just recently launched a blog network called ChicagoNow. As far as I know, they are not currently asking bloggers to sign the same code of ethics that a traditional journalist would.
What do people think of that? If traditional media outlets see the distinction, there might be something more to this lack of code of ethics for bloggers.
I agree bloggers should be responsible. I think that's what your getting at. I think we are both agreeing that a code of ethics isn't necessarily the right approach.
I think it's interesting that you mention celebrity rumors. I watch shows like E! News and whether they say “allegedly” or not, it seems like they are doing damage to the person's reputation. Most of the time, they say something like, “TMZ is reporting…” when really “reporting” should be in quotations. We see the same thing with those tabloid magazines, of course, yet people take plenty of that information for fact too.
How is blogging different from these technically traditional media outlets? Tabloids have a reputation for perpetuating rumors, yet people still buy and consume them, knowing they should take the information with a grain of salt. Don't blog readers know they should take the information with a grain of salt too?
Where does that stop? Do commenters need a code of ethics too? Should tweeters have a code of ethics? Should you sign a code of ethics when you sign up for Facebook? You could say something equally damaging on any of those platforms too.
It sounds completely ridiculous to me. The whole thing.
Also, the clean house analogy still makes sense to me. On the web, my website is my “house.” Anyone who reads it is my family and my guests. I could have a lot of guests or just a few, but either way, they've chosen to enter my house and let my messiness or cleanliness “affect” them.
The problem with blogs is that some of them report rumors as if they are fact, tabloids or other media at least use a disclaimer. We have been trained to recognize anything using the word “allegedly” as a rumor, no matter how its reported we know that if we run with it and the story is wrong.. “They told us it wasn't verifired as a fact…” Along those lines Many people do not recognize rumors when they read blogs. If a person writes with a factual tone but the story is all rumor how does the reader know the difference.
Tabloids either use a discalimer, make up stories that are so ridiculous that they can't be true, or they use clever wordplay which technically is true(although misleading), or they are reporting something that is mostly true. A lot of bloggers make up stories that are false yet based on bits and pieces of something that might be partly true and that is the misleading part. I can use an example of a blogger who wrote a story about an event that I was a part of which some celebrities were involved. The blogger wrote a whole article that was false and had in fact attributed certain actions to the wrong celebrities (the blogger wrote that one person did a certain thing, when in fact it was a completely different person). From his story I could tell that he did not even attend the event, but rather he had likely heard the story from someone who told it to him wrong… and at the end of the day if you were not there you would have assumed that the blogger was really there and that he was writing about what he had witnessed with his own eyes.
Some of these folks purposely exaggerate or add details to stories just to get more readers by having a so called exclusive story. Folks wants to find a shortcut to fame without putting in the work and getting quality stories. Its one thing to write about your opinion no matter how controversial it may be, that's ok… but to make up “facts” is wrong, especially when it affects the lives of others.
Umm…based on the reporting in traditional media, do you really think they have a code of ethics and bloggers should follow their lead?
People, bloggers and journalists, get credibility and authority by being credible and authoritative. If we have “code of ethics” then we get to debate whether or not someone is following the “code of ethics” rather than looking at the work and deciding if the work is credible and has authority.
Judge my work. Not someone's imposed code of ethics.
When friends ask me how to use Twitter or the rules of blogging, I give them some basic outlines but I always end up saying, “There are no rules!” The Internet and blogging is like the Wild West. Everyone does it a little differently and you will probably find out what works for you or the feedback (positive and negative) that you hear from your community (or you may not ever create a community of readers, maybe that's telling you something there). See where I'm going?
In life, we all have our own set of ethics and rules we probably abide by. I think there are guidelines I follow when blogging, but I would be a little riled up if someone (who would it be?) told me a line of ethics to follow when blogging. Chances are, I am probably following most of them, but that is what happens when you self-publish and aren't paid to blog. So I think there are reasons and parameters to stay within, but even the 'rule breakers' of blogging make it interesting and worthwhile.
Also, what if someone created a code of ethics and many influential bloggers spearheaded the ethics…that's a change to implement. It wouldn't be entirely negative but it might be hard to catch on potentially? Who or how would it be enforced?
I agree this happens, I just notice that even traditional media tends to promote rumors that aren't true. Kate Gosselin was on the Today show and said all rumors about her buying a condo in Maryland aren't true – that she didn't even look at condos. How many people still think she is buying a condo in Maryland? I think traditional media is just as bad, if not worse, than bloggers.
The more I think about it, the less I feel traditional media's code of ethics is very strong or holds much credibility. It basically forces the media to jump through hoops to tell the story they want – that's really it.
I don't think that idea holds up well in a community.
I agree with the “life ethics” argument. You blog within your personal ethics and you attract people who can agree (or at least live with) your personal ethics.
If influential bloggers created a code of ethics, it would probably be a different story, right? That's why they're called “influential” I guess. Whether it's the way things should be or not. The only possible enforcement is through feedback from the community.
I frown on anybody who fabricates stories no matter if they are doing it from their bedroom or the boardroom.
I don't disagree with you, mainstream media does go too far at times, and we all know that rumors make it onto mainstream media outlets as well. But I can say that usually networks and major papers try to verify facts, unless it is some major breaking news story that they all want to report first. I think cases are rare where major media have fabricated stories or report info from extra sketchy sources. Where as bloggers will make up stories or fill in gaps in stories with made up details or from pure hear-say, with no consequences. At least when writers or reporters are found making up stories they are fired and sued.
A new problem that has arisen is when the news media picks up and reports stories from bloggers, that is where I think a large amount of mis-information comes form these days. I find it humorous when I watch the news and they cite a Twitter post or a notoriously scandalous blog as their source…. that should pretty much never happen. I don't see how any editor or producer authorizes a report based on a twitter feed. But as long as they can lay the blame on someone else its all good I suppose.
But again I am not speaking about bloggers who are reporting their opinion about people or events, opinons are fair game.
What you write about in your third paragraph is what I'm talking about. The code of ethics doesn't make major media better – it just makes them jump through loopholes to tell the story they want. ie: According to so-and-so's twitter feed, so-and-sue allegedly did this.
Still a rumor. Still damaging. Still as irresponsible as an individual blogger, but with more reach.
I thin ka lot of news outlets have slipped inthe last 10 years… I think shows like 60 minutes are about the closest thing to strong ethics in the media. I can say that they seem to try to get both sides of their stories, and they let the people in the stories speak for themselves. You can't get much better than that.
But with the drive for ratings and ad sales media has become watered down accoutns of the same stories. I recall when Atlanta had 2 major papers and there was a clear motivation for each paper to be the best since they were competing for readers, but at some point the papers merged and the city was left with one voice that could report whatever, however it wanted.
People often have rules for what they allow in the comments section of their blogs, so right there you've got a small code of ethics started in a very independent way.
I totally see your point in that developing a code of ethics for blogs will only create a snowball effect. And, realistically, enforcing a code of ethics is beyond imagining. I have no idea how it would be done.
So, the realities of creating a “reasonable” code of ethics and actually enforcing it make it near impossible for it to happen. The problem lies in taking at face value the crap that people put out there. And there are times that even the most well-respected people screw up in what they discuss because the speed inherent in the blogging platform removes the impetus to fact check and investigate. You don't have to be bad to be wrong. See here: http://bit.ly/rhF19
I see the validity of both sides of the argument. Thanks for helping me see the other side a little more clearly.
Hey Monica. I don't have enough time to read all the comments, so ignore this if it was already surfaced… but one important aspect of a journalist's code of ethics is mandatory disclosure of any conflicts of interest, whether personal, financial, or otherwise. Beyond disclosure, certain journalism organizations will prohibit reporters from reporting on an industry where they have significant and lasting conflicts, such as family members in the industry.
There is a lot to be said for the “information market” working out those bloggers who don't follow a generally accepted and unspecified set of ethical practices. But there is also a danger in dissemination of biased information that is not disclosed as such. True, those provisions for traditional media may have been more “CYA” than anything else, but it's an important component of information integrity as well.
All of that said, I see no way to implement or enforce a blogger's code of ethics. The web's decentralized structure that makes everyone a player on equal footing gives it both its appeal and its riskiness.
Interesting resource I found: http://www.blogwithintegrity.com/ Looks like a potential blogger code of ethics to me
Interesting resource I found: http://www.blogwithintegrity.com/ Looks like a potential blogger code of ethics to me
I gave a presentation on this topic last year and concluded for our own credibility we need to blog with some sort of defined standards. I uploaded the Powerpoint if anyone is interested. http://seobyswaby.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/ethi...
I gave a presentation on this topic last year and concluded for our own credibility we need to blog with some sort of defined standards. I uploaded the Powerpoint if anyone is interested. http://seobyswaby.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/ethi...