No

If the code of journalistic ethics is to be imposed upon bloggers, why aren't professional journalists keeping to their own code of ethics? Today's so-called professional journalists have abdicated their journalistic responsibly over the last 2 years in ways, as a retired journalist, I never thought possible. Liberals accuse Fox News and talk radio of bias. Conservatives accuse NBC, CBS, ABC, CNBC, MSNBC the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune of liberal bias, just to name a few.

Only Fox News, is accused by Barack Obama of being biased. He mentions nothing of the bias in his favor of the 10,000 other media sources who have been in bed with him. They, of course, aren't biased at all. Isn't that remarkable! Only the media source doing its job questioning the president honestly about controversial issues, is singled out for criticism by him and his minions?

With regard to bloggers, why is it that the instant someone's opinions differ from their own, do they demand censorship? Why are we so willing to freely and actively capitulate to censorship and control? Is the next step to eliminate freedom of speech by the imposition of censorship on tweets, emails, phone calls, snail mail and all other forms of speech? There are easily hundreds of thousands of blogs, both professional and amateur, with which I vehemently disagree. But I am not suggesting that they be restricted even with their foul language. It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored.

The claim that blogger anonymity inherently bad is a red herring since many professional journalism writers write under a nom de plume both on blogs and in print. Do you really think that all the names, by which television reporters and anchors are identified on air, are their real names? If so, you are hopelessly naive.

Just whom do those who want to impose censorship on blogs, suggest do the censoring? Should ACORN, as a community activist organization, be the censoring body? How about the Ku Klux Klan?

The assumption that today's "professional" journalists are following their own code of ethics is sadly, false. One of the statements of the journalistic code is to "Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two." Yet, ABC News violated this directive when they aired what was nothing more than an Obama Healthcare Infomercial. If you doubt that statement just consider that journalists are required by their own ethics to present both sides of an issue and put those issues into perspective. Did ABC News do that in their broadcast from the White House... a location that is a clear violation of ethics all by itself...NO!

Here is a breakdown of the time of ABC's hour broadcast:

Twelve per cent of the broadcast was dedicated to pre-taped intro and outro by ABC news anchors which were themselves, promotions of nationalized health care. Twelve per cent of the time was devoted to audience questions, and all audience participants were hand-picked by Obama. If the audience had been a fair representation of both sides of the issue then only six per cent of this infomercial, could have even been partially considered to have been balanced. Sixteen percent was a discussion by Charles Gibson, Diane Sawyer and Tim Johnson MD. Even if half of their discussion presented the opposing point of view, which is did not, that's only eight percent. In reality, they only brought up issues of concern about two per cent of that sixteen percent segment. Finally, during this hour broadcast how much time was Obama given to air his highly partisan health care plan?..."sixty per cent!" This means that only less than 10 per cent of the program could have even remotely been considered to have presented the other side of the issue. That is deplorable and biased journalism by an alleged professional news organization.

In the Preamble to the journalistic code it reads: "The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues." The ABC News presentation was a complete renunciation of their professional journalistic responsibilities.

To demand that bloggers be held to those journalistic standards that professional journalists claim they follow, is to prove that those demanding their imposition, are just as guilty of the horrendous bias as today's journalists are.

Here's a hint, if you don't like what bloggers write, don't go to their blogs. Television viewers and newspaper readers are voting with their feet. Television and newspapers have become so obviously one-sided in their news and editorial presentations, people are looking for almost any alternative for honest reporting, even blogs. At least there, they give no pretense of fairness, as do today's national media. If you don't like what bloggers write, vote with your mouse.

Journalists today do not have any restrictions upon their publications except an alleged voluntary self-imposed code. The problem is that they're not following that code so why should it be imposed on bloggers?

If bloggers, why not Hollywood whose atrocious language and liberal agendas incessantly infiltrate their films? Clint Eastwood's Academy nominated film "Grand Torino" was praised, but the plethora of vile language, detestable racial and ethnic slurs was not criticized at all. I haven't heard anyone in Hollywood demand that Eastwood be censured for his depraved use of profanity.

At one time Matt Drudge would have been considered a blogger. Today, the Drudge Report is the biggest driver on the Internet because his "blog" was the only media outlet who did not spike the "Blue Dress" story during Bill Clinton's administration. Liberal media heavy weights such as the New York Times and Washington Post both had the story but refused to run it prior to the Drudge release because it would have changed opinion of Clinton. They breached their code of ethics because they were biased in favor of Clinton. That is not ethical journalism. Their honesty and fairness is non-existent in their biased coverage of Obama and is infinitely more obsequious.

Thus, to argue that the journalistic code of ethics should be imposed on bloggers is nothing more than an attempt to censor. Do we really want to abandon free speech?

Learn more about this author, Rand E Oertle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.