Blogging with Ethics

February 27, 2005 9:49 PM

Blogging with Ethics While there's been talk of a blogger code of ethics, there's one at Cyberjournalist.net that's pretty in-depth (and looks a lot like this one for professional journalists, this one from nearly three years ago is less involved). One blogger / journalist, has gone as far to create an online petition asking bloggers to adapt an identifiable code.
posted by nospecialfx (22 comments total)

I do not think this word "weblog" means what you think it means.

Or rather, I do not think it means what the authors of a code of ethics or a petition for adherence think it means. News crap and political shit is a very small -- but highly interesting to media professionals -- portion of the weblogging web. Conflating "weblog" with "amateur journalism" is an error.
posted by majick at 10:02 PM on February 27, 2005

" ... asking bloggers to adapt an identifiable code ... "

Or what?

They won't be recognized by the committee?

Their privileges at the club house will be severely restricted?
posted by Relay at 10:28 PM on February 27, 2005

not avian flu but the blog is the pandemic of the decade, dotting the surface of the web like puss-heavy acne.
posted by ori at 10:30 PM on February 27, 2005

Ultimately, it's far simpler: Any blogger who strives for credibility on the matters they cover should decide what their own sense of ethics is, and post that on their site. Then any given reader can decide for themselves if that blogger lives up to that blogger's own sense of ethics.
posted by theonetruebix at 12:04 AM on February 28, 2005

Conflating "weblog" with "amateur journalism" is an error.

Rarely have truer words been spoken.

Additionally, "amateur journalism" is a brilliant description of what we're talking about here. The fact is, posting reverse-chronological text on a website is a particularly east way to "do" amateur journalism. Fine. Weblogs, however, can be different beast entirely.

Then any given reader can decide for themselves if that blogger lives up to that blogger's own sense of ethics.

I doubt that would work, frankly. The success of many "political" weblogs, especially those at extreme ends of the spectrum, thrives on the adoration of people wanting to read what they already think. These kinds of "bloggers" aren't going to be held to any standard of ethics by their readers. Their readers will believe everything they say anyway.

And occasionally link to it on Metafilter.
posted by Jimbob at 12:11 AM on February 28, 2005

doesnt one get a blog so he can tell people where they can stick their rules and "ethics"

or does one just join the rnc for that?
posted by tsarfan at 12:39 AM on February 28, 2005

Bloggers' Code of Ethics. How we laughed. The whole idea of blogging is that it is writing free of rules and restrictions.

We don't, as it were, need your steenking badges.

My blog post today contained a mere two f-bombs and two c-words. I'm obviously losing it.
posted by scaryduck at 1:07 AM on February 28, 2005

My blog post today contained a mere two f-bombs and two c-words.

Wow. Congratulation. With blogs like that, who needs a literary avant-garde?
posted by ori at 1:45 AM on February 28, 2005

This is a patently silly idea that only serves to illustrate how out-of-touch some journalist types are with what blogging is. By many definitions, MeFi is a blog. Do we have to adopt a code of ethics here?

But even if you accept their poor understanding of blog = journalism-type site with political news, the idea is still dumb. Journalists spend all day telling themselves how objective and important they are. Hasn't stopped their profession from becoming a complete joke.
posted by teece at 2:07 AM on February 28, 2005

Yeah, journalism is a complete joke, which is why so many blogs contain nothing but links to commentary on and links to professional journalism.
posted by raysmj at 3:14 AM on February 28, 2005

I don't think there's any harm in an opt-in code of conduct. People that do opt in might undergo more rigorous scrutiny, but at the same time meeting certain levels of accuracy would make them more deserving of a broader audience that opting into such a code might bring about. So long as this doesn't lead to mediocrity and the dilution of opinion pieces, then I really don't see the harm. A mandatory code, on the other hand, would be a very bad thing. The internet of all places should be where the value of free speech is most recognised.
posted by nthdegx at 5:01 AM on February 28, 2005

From the article: These are just guidelines -- in the end it is up to individual bloggers to choose their own best practices.

Yeah, and the same is true for those ethics rules for journalists --- they are just guidelines. For example, a newspaper or a TV program may chose to ignore them (in fact, many do), and nothing will happen, as long as they don't break the law.

Individual journalists are primarily bound by the policy enforced by their employer (who may or may not have a reputation to defend), so the standards vary widely. Individual bloggers don't even have their employers breathing down their necks, so this whole thing will prove to be an excercise in futility.
posted by sour cream at 5:06 AM on February 28, 2005

A lot of journalistic ethics came about for two reasons:

1: If you treat your sources like shit, they stop returning your phone calls while doing interviews with your competitors.

2: Facing down lawsuits for slander is expensive. Even when you are backed by a right-wing thinktank with a massive legal warchest (as is the case with Drugde), you probably can't get away with it every day.

By many definitions, MeFi is a blog. Do we have to adopt a code of ethics here?

I would argue we already have. (Or rather, Matt has for us.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:08 AM on February 28, 2005

posted by quonsar at 5:23 AM on February 28, 2005

In college, students are told to cite the place where they got a piece of info they have used, rather than the original source if they had not used that. However, when I post pics (yes: girls) I seldom give the souce because blogger D got it from C and C from B etc and no one know the original source. When I do use a pic that is done by a photographer, and I get it from that source, then I do provide the link/source...this may not be the appropriate method for doing things but I am able to post a lot more and save time rather than cite a place that simply got it from some other place etc.

In sum: anything original get a source/link...sometimes a hat tip..otherwise we are all one big happy family.
posted by Postroad at 6:48 AM on February 28, 2005

Why would anyone take exception to this? Bloggers currently have a parisitic relationship with the press - something appears online or in print, and blogs talk about it.

Not every blogger is a 14-year old girl saying "OMG UR SO HAWT!!1". The blogs that would benefit for a code of ethics do so not just to echo what KirkJob said but also to get an air of legitimacy.
posted by rzklkng at 7:48 AM on February 28, 2005

And while we're at it, let's finally get around to that much-needed code of ethics for people who doodle on Post-It^® Notes, too!
posted by MaxVonCretin at 9:23 AM on February 28, 2005

Blogging ethics? Political correct blogging? Holy Zombie Jesus! The fun of blogging is that you can say WHATEVER you want ... as long as it is within the law ...

I hate this initiatives that try to make our world a more understandable, orderly and clean places. That is so anal ...
posted by homodigitalis at 9:45 AM on February 28, 2005

Unfortunately, just because you're a blogger doesn't mean you're protected from liable and slander -- some bloggers would do well to take note of that.

And if there aren't some blogs out their trying to be journalists, then why are they pushing for shield laws? If you look like a journalist, act like a journalist, then well...

besides, I think this is aimed at those blogs that insist on seeing themselves as some kind of exclusive news outlet...
posted by nospecialfx at 9:51 AM on February 28, 2005

Haw haw haw, quonsar. You've gotta be a dedicated microhatron to make that. I'm stealing it.

Oh, and on the topic at hand, in the Oscar that never was mood. I second a blogging Declaration of Principles.
posted by gsb at 9:57 AM on February 28, 2005

By many definitions, MeFi is a blog. Do we have to adopt a code of ethics here?

teece has posted no links 147 comments to MetaFilter
and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk

Give it a look, teece, and you'll find out this question is being asked and answered every single day.
posted by soyjoy at 1:10 PM on February 28, 2005

If bloggers were to start signing on to that code, they would officially be hampered by more rules than just about any "real" journalist ever has been. I work for a print pub., and no one ever made me sign a declaration. They just wanted to know if could write well and keep track of names. Many pubs seem to consider even that much unnecessary. Of course, any journalist just starting out will have something to guide them no blogger does: their editor. Sort of an outboard code of ethics (for better or worse).

While drilling through the links in the original post, I came across this simplified ethical code:

1. Disclose all pertinent information about your interests.

2. Never state as fact something you know not to be true.

That really strikes me as all that's important as far as ethics are concerned. Everything else that a good journalist does is attributable to skill, and that mostly involves staying awake, being a smooth talker at times (and an even better listener), and having some serviceable handle on grammar. The best also seem to have the willingness to risk, and the ability to know when it's worth it. But then, those are all pretty good rules for life in general. So they must certainly be enough for blogging.
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:36 PM on February 28, 2005