Get a Widget for this title
RSS Feed
Should bloggers be held to the same code of ethics as professional journalists?
Should bloggers be held to the same code of ethics as professional journalists?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 61% | 152 votes | Total: 250 votes | |
| No | 39% | 98 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAs a former magazine publisher, I consider myself a professional journalist. I also maintain almost a half dozen blogs. For me, there is no question that the same code of ethics applies to both bloggers and professional journalists.
According to the website for the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), there are four basic tenets to the code of ethics, with each being elaborated upon by several statements. The four tenets are:
* Seek the truth and report it - Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
* Minimize Harm - Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
* Act Independently - Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
* Be Accountable - Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
The SPJ Preamble to their Code of Ethics states that "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." When considering blogs, some bloggers might argue that their work is light-hearted, or done tongue-in-cheek. Does this mean that honesty and integrity are optional, and therefore, these same standards to not apply?
I considered my own blogs. One is something of a personal diary of sorts... a place to post family photos, information about the winter ice storm that ravaged our community, tributes to family and friends who have passed away, and cute pictures of our cats. Another is devoted to posting daily devotionals that I write and send out to a number of people via e-mail. Yet another serves as a sounding board and support for members of the "Sandwich Generation" - caring for their own young family and elderly persons at the same time while "sandwiched" in between. Still another is the central information site for a local annual 5k race to benefit the American Cancer Society.
Virtually none of these blogs would be considered serious journalism, much less rocket science, but each serves a purpose. As such, I feel all of them deserve the utmost attention to detail, including accuracy of information, citing sources, checking facts/spelling/gramm ar, and making sure all information is represented fairly and factually, to the best of my knowledge and ability. On my daily devotional site, a scripture is included each day from "The Message," and I requested (and received) permission from NavPress to use these passages on my blog. In return, I include a permission statement given me by NavPress with each day's posting - I cite my source.
Additionally, I have tried to be extremely careful in posting photographs and information about others. I figure if I wouldn't want a particular photo or information posted about myself, I should not paint someone else in a bad light.
On my "Sandwich Generation" blog, I have posted comments and quotes from other people about their personal experiences. In each instance, I have contacted the person ahead of time and acquired their permission to do so. Since much of that information was sent to me via e-mail message, I could easily have passed it on in a post. But people often say things in an e-mail they do not intend to have shared with others, much less the world at large.
I have visited blogs where poor grammar, slang, degradation and obscenities are the rule of the day. I find these offensive and ineffective, at best, and certainly unprofessional. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we do have the right of free speech, insulting and disrespecting another person's character, gender, race, creed or religion has no place on credible blogs.
Comedian Craig Ferguson has a running gag that he "saw it on the Internet." He always adds... "and you know, if you see it on the Internet, it's TRUE!" Sadly, many people buy this notion hook, line and sinker. This makes it all the more critical that bloggers and journalists alike verify information, double-check sources, and exercise diligence in reporting fairly and accurately.
Having said this, all of us are human and make mistakes from time to time. Our blogs may include typos and misspellings, and occasionally we may make a statement that is "fuzzy" at best... if not downright inaccurate. The ethical solution is to issue a retraction and/or correction immediately. People are fairly forgiving when someone admits to an error. But try to pull a fast one or get by with a half-truth - much less an out-and-out lie - and your credibility will be ruined forever.
I am not sure I quite understand why this is even an issue. Sure, many blogs are not considered pure journalism. Still, anyone who is writing down their thoughts and words and posting them in this venue must consider themselves a journalist of sorts. Why would anything but the highest ethical standards apply to bloggers any less than professional journalists? Thankfully, organizations such as the SPJ exist and do have a code of ethics and standards which they expect their members to uphold. And wouldn't you know it... someone has come up with a "Bloggers' Code of Ethics" based on the SPJ's model. Now if we can just get bloggers to read these principles and standards and comply, maybe the quality - and overall credibility - of information posted on the Internet will improve, as well.
Sources:
Society of Professional Journalists - http://www.spj.org/e thicscode.asp
CyberJournalist.net - http://www.cyberjour nalist.net/news/0002 15.php
Learn more about this author, Debbie Robus.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Professional journalists have a code of ethnics, yet many of their published stories should be taken with a grain of salt, not unlike reading your horoscope. Gone are the days of newspapers informing the reader, the focus is getting the advertising. Bloggers will often cover a story from a different angle than that of main stream media. I've even on more than one occasion found blogs with a more accurate account of events.
A chapter in the Karla Homolka saga that took place here in Joliette, Quebec back in 2005. I covered it as a photographer, it was a real media circus. What was interesting was reading the versions of the articles written about Karla Homolka. Some journalists portrayed her as a victim of her monsterous husbands Paul Bernardo, while other journalists had her down as a very manipulative and calculating person. Journalists are supposed to inform you, but in this case back in 2005, the media either had you seing Karla Homolka as an innocent victim in this tragedy, or the complete opposite as a manipulative person.
Things haven't improved much since then either. While main stream media outlets complain about citizen journalism missing in objectivity, their track record is not much better. Gone are the days of journalists wanting to dig deep into stories, to shed some light on issues.
In the September 2009 issue of the Quebec french news magazine L'Actualite, Marie-Eve Cousineau did an article about Louise Major, the mayoress of Rawdon, Quebec, and her reasonable accommodations program for newly arriving immigrants to the community. Of course no number of newly arrived citizens are giving or any figures discussed in the article. But according to the mayoress it is a very successful program. Louise Major was the only person interviewed in this article. Interestingly enough, this same municipality of about 10,000 citizens has spent some $200,000 in legal fees in the first seven months of 2009, and that doesn't included past fees already paid out. Could this article be a smoke screen, and Marie-Eve Cousineau have been, unknownly used as a pawn to help Louise Major look good for the upcoming November municipal elections, which just happen to get under way in September.
Louise Major's flagship case, is her Cyberintimidation cause, this is the one she loves to boast about, as it has been covered in numerous times in various newspapers. Back in February 6th 2008, the municipality of Rawdon was granted by Mr Justice Guibault in the Joliette Superior Court four separate Anton Pillar search and seize orders. The first order was served out on February 7th, on February 8th two ohter orders were executed. The Fourth granted Anton Pillar order was never served. Anton Pillar orders are very costly, especially if not properly executed. The fact that only three of the four Anton Pillar orders where ever executed, raises a red flag and starts to explain why this rural municipality has such extravagant legal fees. To date the municipality have never offered any explanations before the courts as to why they sought Anton Pillar orders on an urgent and necessary basis, and failed to excersice it accordingly. All this, although every newspaper, both local and Montreal covered the case, all this seemed to have gone undetected, only a local blog posted all this info.
Contrary to what was widely reported by media in July 2009, this same defamation case is far from over. The media also missed the fact that sworn statements by Rawdon public officials, the mayoress Louise Major and lawyer Jean Lacroix who is the municipality of Rawdon's General director, where deposited in the Ontario Courts on February 11th 2008. The only place to have reported the real facts, with the legal documents, was local bloggers.
In the end journalism is about providing true stories of concern to the community, digging for the real story, not afraid to ask questions. It's not about writing only what a press release tells you. As newspapers seem to be cutting back on good quality content, blogsseem to be a good alternative, whether or not they have a code of ethics to follow.
Learn more about this author, Richard Prudhomme.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Internet Writing & Blogging
- Is using an academic ghost writer dishonest?
- Should you quit your day job to blog?
