Many bloggers now face the same ethical and professional questions journalists continually face as professional writers and reporters. After David’s presentation at the DCI, and subsequent discussions there and on this blog, many people (David, Charley, rightmiddleleft, eury13, et al) have begun reflecting on the role of the blogger. And frankly, some navel-gazing is due.
Newspaper reporters, in particular, and bloggers share core similarities but also differ in very basic ways (ultimately affecting the ethical questions we ask.)
For instance, when a campaign staffer writes a letter to The Globe that both supports one candidate and bashes an opponent, the opposing campaign has one or two days to draft a reply and lobby the Globe’s editorial page editor to get a reply in the paper. For 24-48 hours, the sole voice out there (I use this hypothetical with full knowledge of the recent abuse of hypotheticals in the Jon-Stewart-bashing column)is that of the first campaign’s. For blogs that dilemma does not exist.
Bloggers can post an indefinite amount of material, more or less uninhibited, and in real-time. That’s pretty powerful.
Everyone I’ve talked with already knows I support some establishment of professional and ethical guidelines in order to establish credibility of information. But I’d like to hear what everyone else thinks.
Should blogs write their rules in stone or let all posts through, allowing the readers to decide for themselves? Do certain blogs (with more visibility and readers) have a responsility to their readers to provide reliable information?
