Blogger Influence Raises Ethical Questions

[ClarkUSA]

The evolution of the internet into "respectability" has begun. Bloggers other than Jerome are quoted about their views, including Zepyhr Teachout.

NEW YORK - When Jerome Armstrong began consulting for Howard Dean's presidential campaign, he thought the ethical thing to do was to suspend the Web journal where he opined on politics.

But to suggest others do the same with their journals, otherwise known as blogs? No way.

"If I'm getting paid by a client, I don't blog about it. That's my personal set of standards," Armstrong said. "I'm not going to hold anybody else to my personal standards. I'm not going to make that universal."

The growing influence of blogs such as his is raising questions about whether they are becoming a new form of journalism and in need of more formal ethical guidelines or codes of conduct.

<more>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20050121/ap_on_hi_te/blogger_ethics

[EC]

1. formal ethical guidelines or codes of conduct....how can that

apply to personnal diaries? Knew this was coming, free speech becoming a real thorn in their side....

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. blogs should stay free...

but they will be a great stepping stone or gateway to the big time for several reputable new journalists...;-)

[FrenchieCat]

3. If television and Corporate media have not standards....

why should anyone else?

Ratbastards!

[fooj]

4. All's fair in love and in war baby!

:hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Was there this much concern about blogs when the right-wing

nutcases canvassed the internet in the late 90s? Drudge, townhouse.com; freerepublic.com. Why didn't the newsmedia worry about them when they were pushing a one-sided agenda?

[mogster]

6. The bloggers are the vanguards of direct democracy

A true product of the Internet, enabling participation in politics by the 'common' people.

As a side-effect, they've turned out to be an infectious spreader of both truth and lies, creating a new media layer below the MSM.

If it weren't for the Internet (if Bush I had won in '92?), the RW would have won by now.
As it is, they haven't got a chance - in the long run.

[AZCat]

7. Why develop formal ethical guidelines...

when they're just going to get ignored?

The other forms of media do it - I read the CJR's Campaign Desk all last year, and cannot count the number of times they called the other media to task for various transgressions, yet there was no stopping them. There may have been some lip-service given to proper reporting techniques and journalistic ethics by institutions such as the Gray Lady, but that seems to have all been forgotten now.

I say rather than develop some sort of artificial structure, just promote the Caveat Lector philosophy.

[John_H]

8. this is a non controversy. here's why:

We know not to trust CNN, FAUX, or the Washington Post because we recognize their multiple conflicts of interest, the craven careerism of their reporters, and the way access is traded for shilling. We should approach blogs the same way.

If a political campaign buys a particular blog to use as part of their message operation, we are all able to regulate the jaundice of our eyes during all future readings of that blog.

I now have three self-imposed levels of trust for

--bloggers who do not sell their blogs when they are hired as consultants, but rather suspend blogging.

--bloggers who sell their blogs but disclose they are selling their blogs.

--bloggers who sell their blogs without informing their readers.

The last quote of the article is about right:."No one's bound by these rules," Gillmor said, "but I think some norms will emerge for people who want to be taken seriously."