Ethics, Bloggers, and Independent Media

[alevensalor]

I just ran across this interview with Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory news:
http://radiofreeblogistan.com/2005/02/21/the_big_e_ethics_bloggers_and_independent_media.html

She had a bunch of good things to say about DU, and I thought you guys might want a look at it.

*snip*
Larisa Alexandrovna, associate editor and journalist for Raw Story, has been in the thick of it, and sees the middle way between blogging and mainstream media quite clearly. She shares her thoughts on indie media with us at RFB.

What's your take on this, Larisa?

Well, you have the problem of diarists, journalists, and journalists who are also diarists. Citizen journalists I would include in the "journalists" category. It lends to a great deal of confusion. Journalists are required to adhere to standards of ethics and reporting principles. In that regard you have the independent/Progressive press both online and through other channels, such as publications, radio, etc.

Journalists who also happen to be blogging, I would think, have more leeway in their personal diaries, as long as they make the distinction that they are simply expressing personal opinion and do not violate any journalistic principles outright. In other words, openly discussing an ongoing investigation or outing a source would not be something a responsible journalist should do.

Diarists/Bloggers, on the other hand, face a different set of issues entirely. It also does not help that the mainstream has labeled all Web reporting as "blogging."

Both genres are extremely essential to getting information out to the people and both rely heavily on one another. The bloggers/diarists are, collectively, the voice of the masses. That voice cannot be and should not be "controlled" nor should that voice be held to standards that limit its freedom. Also, bloggers can say things journalists cannot, they can simply express a certain view; work on research; and most importantly they can work using one another's skill set in groups in order to achieve a particular goal. This is democracy, the voice of the people.

In a group environment, where many personal blogs are hosted, there should be a blanket statement explaining to would-be readers that the sentiments expressed are not vetted news stories. There are bloggers who would make very credible journalists to be sure, but they also have to take on the responsibility that comes with the turf. So yes, I am concerned on many levels because the Web can spread rumor, conjecture, etc., at the speed of light and inadvertently devalue the independent press. The Web is also a hot-bed for disinformation, which diarists might spread unknowingly.

Creating the benchmark, however, should not be up to the individual diarist as they should be free to express themselves. The benchmark should be set for how blogs are quoted, used, sourced, etc., by the media. One other item of note is that blogs are sourced in the mainstream for a story when in fact the blog may just be providing a link to the actual story. Again, these issues should not be addressed on a personal level; rather, they should be addressed by clearly separating diarists from journalists. I think of citizen journalists as in fact journalists, assuming they adhere to the basic ethical standards, report responsibly, and thoroughly vet their information. I think blogs are highly important and influential, but I think their biggest contribution is research (careful research) and open discussion. They are also key in grassroots mobilization, but again, there has to be an understanding that the independent progressive press is different from blogging.

*/snip*

~A!

[annabanana]

1. I do believe she is right!!

-snip-

I have my coffee in the morning and I run through the blogs. DU has an astonishing collection of citizen journalists, bloggers, and all sorts of highly skilled people who could probably run this country better than our three branches of government put together.

[alevensalor]

2. I tend to agree n/t

[lala_rawraw]

3. Well It is true

About DU and I really wanted to get that across. You guys should get the attention you deserve darn it:)

[IndyPriest]

4. Good analysis from Larisa, BUT its usefulness in the

real world depends a lot on whether "the media" are, in fact, the benchmark for what's accepted as "news." IMHO, they increasingly aren't. THAT'S the problem in the landscape she tries to lay out. Am I supposed to take Howie Kurtz as the benchmark for the Gannon story? Puh-leeze. It's NOT just that there are varieties of writers and standards on the internet. It's that there are varieties of writers with varieties of standards WITHIN the media. It's a far more tangled web than Larisa notes.

[lala_rawraw]

5. Yes

I agree, but I was only given a limited amount of time to discuss this and a limited amount of space in which to do it. Surely the web is far more complicated, but the answer to this is really that simple, in my opinion.