For now, I think I have to come down on the side of Phil Balboni in this.
In the “Beat the Press” post, the distinction was made between “performing” journalism, and being a journalist. Dictionary definitions, aside, I believe that being a journalist signifies more than just the reporting. While I heartily agree with the two notions that the fourth estate plays a vital role in democracies and that it enjoys a prestige far greater than it normally earns, I feel that the differences between reporting and blogging are important.
Not being a journalist, I had to do a little research…and I googled my way to the Society of Professional Journalists to see what a professional journalistic code of ethics really looks like, and I present it here in full:
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society’s principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
- Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
- Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
- Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
- Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
- Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
- Never plagiarize.
- Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
- Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
- Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
- Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
- Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
- Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
- Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
- Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
- Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
- Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
- Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
- Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
- Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
- Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
- Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
- Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
Journalists should:
- Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
- Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
- Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
- Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
- Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
- Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
- Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
- Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
- Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
- Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
- Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
- Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
A worthy ideal. One that we all depend on in tens of thousands of professional journalists everyday. Do they always meet these standards? Not by a long shot, especially with a view to the sensitivity afforded people with no prior experience of being in the news. But we depend on it nonetheless, and rightly rail against failures to live up to this ideal, and there, my fellow bloggers, is the rub.
The upside spoken of here in BMG is that of access. Personally, I’d love it. Who doesn’t wants to be on the inside? However the downside is accountability. None of us expect to be sued for libel or slander. After all, we’re simply employing our constitutional right of free speech. Though we expect the truths we blog of to be self-evident, we make absolutely no claims of veracity or integrity in our diaries, And that, though I’m no expert, seems to me to be the whole ball game, right there.
Should some of us, should I, join the Society of Professional Journalists, and attempt to raise the journalistic standards of blogging? This is worth some serious thought. It would be better if I could make a liv
ing off of it, to be sure. Should Blue Mass Group, or some of the very good diarists here as individuals take that step in adopting the standards put forth in the code of ethics above? Is BMG or any other blog site prepared to ban, delete and recant unethical diaries or diarists? Will there some certification board be created to uphold the journalistic integrity of member blogs? A “Society of Ethics in Weblogs?” Are those here and elsewhere prepared to give up their right to rant in order to preserve the ideal?
I think that it’s coming for certain, and when it takes hold, the world of journalism will change as much as it did when the first news was broadcast over the airwaves. Perhaps it’s really not so bad a prospect…the radio gave us Edward R. Murrow, after all.
Is anyone here a professional journalist?
UPDATE: In the spirit of this post, I went through all my previous posts and prefaced them with the word, “COMMENTARY,” in caps. Hopefully, it’ll save my posterior, if not, it should at least save the site some headaches in future. What do I know?
Speak for yourself! Not only do we (the editors) try to write posts that reek of veracity and integrity, we can and do delete user posts that are full of unsupported factual claims. So we’re already doing some of what you’re talking about. As for being sued for libel, of course no one “expects” to be sued, but don’t assume that just because you post on a blog, it can’t happen to you. It can.
<
p>
If you want people to take your blogging seriously, you should demand of yourself standards similar to what you’d expect from professionals. If you don’t, then I’m not sure why it’s worth doing.
However, my point is that I don’t (yet) wear that as a badge I’m prepared to stand up in court and defend.
I didn’t know about that suit, thanks for the link.
people here do a pretty good job of sourcing, as many many others do elsewhere.
<
p>
Maybe I’m wrong, but it just seems such a big step. From that link you posted:
<
p>
<
p>
This is something a professional journalist would think of doing, which I, for instance, would normally not.
…I have been paid money by news organs for writing. If I had to live on it, I’d starve. To me, ‘professional’ carries with it an assumption of full-time work and Journalistically schooled, not mere punditry for which I am paid. Perhaps I am an amateur journalist?
<
p>
That aside, in our tradition of Cos-like disclosure, we’ve had this discussion before, and I reiterate – bloggers are not journalists, but they are editorialists/columnists.
<
p>
Does that entitle them to access and credentials? Do they have to raise their hands when a political figure asks if there are any members of the media present (I was once at an event where that question was asked by a controversial DA, and the response was non-verbal – somebody used their phone to make a flash like a camera going off, and the whole room broke up)? These are questions which are evolving, and NECN came down for now on the conservative side of the equation.
I’ve seen some really nasty stuff in blogs, assertions overstated in the extreme. I’ve ranted once or twice myself, though I’ve never claimed anything I’ve written wasn’t my opinion, and only that, and as always I welcome comment and debate. (I’ve also come to regret posting those rants and I wish I could delete all those diaries-I’m fairly new to blogging.)
<
p>
I don’t write the extremely well-documented diary, such as many I’ve read @ dailykos, and here. I never saw a diary solely consisting of the diarist’s interview with an office holder or candidate before coming here, and yes, THAT’S journalism…no doubt. Features and interviews.
<
p>
Like I said in the diary, it’s certain that some individuals will elevate this to something officially recognized as journalism, and after learning that BMG’s editors (I didn’t even know there were editors here, either) have, in fact editted content here, I see the process is well on its way. My gut tells me that many diarists are very very close to being recognized on a par with MSM columnists.
<
p>
I wish those people success, and support their efforts. Now that I think of it, it’s kind of a magic moment, greassroots journalism moving into the mainstream, which I’m happy to be witnessing.
<
p>
Just a thought: I read in the “Rules of the Road” that BMG exists to spark debate and discussion so perhaps another “brand” might hasten that recognition.
<
p>
Again, good luck to you. You’re doing good work.
However the downside is accountability. None of us expect to be sued for libel or slander. After all, we’re simply employing our constitutional right of free speech.
<
p>
The 1st amendment does not shield you from the consequences of your speech, and particularly doesn’t shield you from a suit for libel or slander. The press portion may partially shield a publisher from suit under the NYTimes vs. Sullivan doctrine (which basically says that a publisher cannot be successfully sued unless the piece was published with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth), but that’s about it.
I’m neither a journalist nor a lawyer. I have no degree in anything whatsoever, and frankly, I’m not used to being read.
<
p>
This is new ground for me.
Personally I think all blogs should have an “For Entertainment Purposes Only” disclaimer banner across the top. News outlets are supposed to at least try to be unbiased. The whole point of most blogs seems to be to allow people to promote their particular bias. I read red and blue and both push their own agendas.
but in blogs, at least it’s open and more honest in that regard. News outlets are certainly biased as well, only none of them specifically state their bias, and FoxNews lies about it.
<
p>
But this is a site supposed to spark discussion. So bring your biases (sp?), I certainly do, and my ignorance as well. Bring yours, we’ll talk about them. I’m read these blogs to find news from likeminded people.
<
p>
This may be even better than straight journalism. Hear the news, read an interviewor a feature then discuss it!
<
p>
How cool is that?
Or the Weekly Standard?
<
p>
Or the Hearst Organization, in its heyday? Or even (blush) Porcupine’s Gazette in the 18th century?
<
p>
Journalism was EXPECTED to be biased, up until about the 1940’s-50’s, coincidental with the rise of the Big Three in Broadcasting, and the institution of the Fairness Doctrine which existed NOWHERE in journalism before that. It came into being because broadcasting was a public trust, in a way that a purchased newspaper was not. Newspapers began to try to emulate non-bias, and had different amounts of success (did ANYBODY ever think the Globe unbiased?).
<
p>
Your perception of news outlets is a fairly recent one overall.
Nick Lemann uses the term “internet journalism” to include blogs and not completely professional internet news sites. For now, I think the term is fair. As a blogger, I don’t employ an editor or even proofreaders. I don’t view myself as a professional either. When talking to the bloggily clueless, I’ve described as “sort of a half-assed journalist.”
<
p>
I do very little work on Granby01033 that qualify as actual news stories. When I do such a story, I sign my name rather my initials, which I use whenever the basis of one of my posts is another person’s article.
<
p>
Lemann also likens blogs to the pamphlets of the 18th century. His The Wayward Press: Amateur Hour appeared in the New Yorker, and he does a pretty good job looking at us from a journalistic point of view.
<
p>
Another opinion is that of Peter Daou. He argues BMG and progressive blogs are part of a triangle formed by the media, our party affiliation, and blogs. He doesn’t define a blog, but he considers our function as similar to the role Limbaugh and his ilk play. Our job is challenging the mainstream media’s portrayals and acting as an echo chamber for the message of the left.
<
p>
Am I a journalist? I wouldn’t call myself that. I’m a blogger. I think a better question is what is I do rather than what I am. The latter is deduced from the former.
<
p>
Here’s the links I didn’t know how to embed:
<
p>
Lemann: http://www.newyorker…
<
p>
Daou: http://blogreport.sa…
<
p>
Mark
True enough. Unbiased journalism is the ultimate oxymoron. How, where and even if a story is reported all come into play. The Globe is always liberal and the Herald is always conservative. That’s why I read both and others as well. Somewhere along the line someone decided that jouralists should be unbiased and just report the news. Maybe they thought it made them more professional. I don’y think anyone is buying it.
People are gonna read this. Now I’m scared.