Interesting Debate over Blog Ethics

It all started when Zachary Roth of Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk complained a bit waspishly about how the blogosphere was running exit poll numbers hours before the end of the 02/03 primaries. The phrase 'journalistic ethics' was used;

Then Kos sent in his own letter where he points out, fairly gently, that blogs aren't actually bound by journalistic ethics, because they actually aren't journalistic entities;

Roth, in his response, tells Kos not to have it both ways: if his blog wants to be taken seriously in the realm of public opinion, then it'll have to follow rules already set up. The phrase 'behaving like a two-year-old' was used;

Meanwhile, outside of the immediate blast zone, Calpundit is wondering precisely what's the big deal about revealing exit polling - I gotta admit, I don't think that this is much of a sin, myself - and Blogging of the President is giving backup to Kos' POV;

And, meanwhile, the discussion on dKos itself has an interesting diary entry and the usual thicket of posts, ranging from good to bloody useless.

As you might have guessed, I'm slightly more sympathetic towards dKos' side of the argument; blogs aren't newspapers, we don't associate any sort of mystical qualities to our hobby and if we were comfortable with the restrictions of contemporary journalism we wouldn't be shouting quite so much (and so bitterly) about it. However, I do think that Zachary hit fairly close to home with his noting that blogs that want to have the power of journalistic entities should expect to have to follow the rules of journalistic entities. It's definitely something to think about further.

Comments

[Factory]

"if his blog wants to be taken seriously in the realm of public opinion, then it'll have to follow rules already set up"

Hmm what a load of crap.
- A blogger does not need to mimic a journo to be taken seriously, certainly if a blogger wants to be taken seriously, they need to follow some rules, but they are not the rules of a journal.
- DKos will not be taken seriously depending on the original article, since DKos is not about the articles, it's about the discussion that goes on about the articles. Not all blogs are like this, but DKos is.

I think the quote show a lack of understanding of what exactly blogs are.

[Josh]

we don't associate any sort of mystical qualities to our hobby

Well, maybe you don't, but there are plenty of bloggers out there who do. They're on crack, if you ask me, but there you go.

[Moe Lane]

"Well, maybe you don't, but there are plenty of bloggers out there who do."

True enough. I name no names and point no fingers. :)

Moe

PS: Factory, it's a summation of Zach's position, not a direct quote (it's not my own position, either, although I think that ethical standards of some time will probably needed for blogs that wish to shape public opinion on journalism-entity level). Just saying.

[carpeicthus]

I'm sympathetic to Roth, probably because his tone was so much better, and, perhaps, because I'm a journalist. I think that you certainly aren't bound to anything (neither are newspapers; they bind themselves when we're lucky) but there is no free lunch. If I see an accusation by Atrios, I say, "gee, that's interesting, I'll believe it when it comes back with proper fact-checking." Kos is right that as a conversation among activists the rules are very different, but any of the chowderheads who think that blogs are going to somehow replace newspapers -- well, they're wrong, but they'd have to clean up their act before they could even be right in an alternate universe.

[Gary Farber]

Am I the only one who is a tad bothered that neither Moulitsas nor Roth appear to know the meaning of the word "flaunt" and that it isn't "flout"?

Flaunting such flouting of meaning is, to me, a worse crime than publishing poll results (which, incidentally, is hardly the same crime as not fact-checking, and thus being an unreliable reporter).

[Andrew Hagen]

If you don't consider yourself the press, you cannot claim freedom of the press.

Anyone who writes for public consumption has some ethical duties. Among them are the avoidance of libel, slander, copyright violations, and plagiarism. Sometimes these duties are legal in nature, sometimes they are only moral.

If "D-kos" really believed that a blogger had no ethical responsibilities, why isn't he publishing the name and picture of Kobe Bryant's accuser, the name and picture of Kerry's alleged paramour, and why, indeed, does he not just make up evidence to suit his arguments? He does not do these things because he has ethical duties, he recognizes them as ethical duties, and he honors them.

Therefore, "D-Kos" or whoever is either lying, or, more likely, highly confused.