Blogger Ethics
I'm reading my morning coffee (thank goodness it's always decaf) and reading my Wall Street Journal and notice the article entitled "When Bloggers Make News" (registration required). The article discusses the increasing impact of blogs as alternatives to traditional media. The article further discusses a group of folks who are getting together to discuss a blogger's code of ethics. Questions include bloggers disclosing the source of income, conflicting standards for journalists who blog, bloggers endorsing the links their sites point to, etc?
As I write this post, I am reminded of several key things that probably inspired most of us to blog to begin with - and I comment from the HR/Employment Law space. First, I actually enjoy reading unedited or filtered commentary on subjects most of us face every day.... a case in California, an NLRB decision, the latest thinking on HR metrics, etc. The posts we read are not micromanaged to death by bureaucracies. How many of us read publications written by writers who have NEVER dealt with some of the serious workplace issues we have been involved in on a regular basis? I'll leave nameless the newspaper I know with the workplace column written by someone who has never dealt with workplace issues - it's obvious and I can't understand why readers would think it's of value. Secondly, our blogs represent what we feel is important, interesting, unique or of interest at any given time on any given day. It's how life unfolds in the real world and the workplace, which is a major component of everyone's lives. Third, there are no limits to what we discuss. Most topics chosen are relevant and are sometimes the only place to find a good summary of an issue. Finally, how many times have we, as professionals, been quoted in the news or written an article, only to find that the published version represents little of what we said or the spirit and intent of our words.
My blog is listed on a variety of listings. I recently attempted to list my blog on another (which shall also remain nameless). I received an email back from the "editor" who told me that my blog did not meet their "editorial guidelines." After reviewing the supposed "guidelines," (which included, among others, nitpicky details on how I was supposed to post and organize my postings), I told the "editor" thanks, but no thanks... I wasn't going to change my blog just to make him happy. Our blogs are a source of information that we and others find of value, and should not be limited, curtailed, or micromanaged in any way.
On the subject of ethics, I wholeheartedly agree that where we cannot be objective, we should state so, we should let the reader know who we are so they understand our views, and, as the article suggests, publish only what we believe to be true and, of course, correct our mistakes publicly. But, unlike traditional media, we are not journalists (the article refers to us a "citizen-journalists"). While there have been reports, particularly in the political arena, of false information found on blogs, we also know this to be true in traditional media.
In this space, we are generally people who do this every day and have developed strong opinions and views based on being in the trenches. Each of our professional reputations as practitioners in this field are built and reinforced slowly every day and we know how easy it is for them to become tarnished. That's something that most traditional journalists can't touch and serves, to some extent, to self-police all of us.
I found this article to be very interesting. The idea of a blog to me is a forum for social let down for those who take the intiative to participate in dicussion and value their own opinion as well as other.
Like any newspaper, journal or magazine , the freedom of speech notion is still controlled by our bureacratic structure of managing our opinions on matters.
