When Paul Revere took to his horse the night of April 18th, 1775 to warn the Boston countryside that the British were coming (let us excuse how history exaggerates the tale), we don't read about how each family who heard Revere's cries asked him to stop and produce his credentials before they took up his call to arms. Most knew Revere by name or reputation.
So, what does Paul Revere's ride have to do with blogging versus the work of journalism? First, it reminds us that the concept of publicly sharing one's fears across the countryside is nothing new (though the horse is a woeful substitute for the web). Second, it demonstrates how citizens have long recognized the difference between some unknown fool with a few too many ales in him shouting about the British at their doorway and the identifiable and respected Paul Revere doing the same.
As journalism grows less profitable by the day, the ethics of the whole profession come into crisis. As more newspapers fail, the line between bloggers,citizen journalists and professionals grows harder to distinguish. Nonetheless, when a paid journalist gets his or her information wrong, there is often an outcry. Do we have a right to the same sense of disgust when a blogger does the same?
If we're reading the New York Times or CNN online, we have an expectation that what we read is true. Unfortunately, their errors are growing as such sites try to scoop competitors and get a share of the all-mighty advertising dollar. All too often, these respected bastions of journalistic ethics get their news from bloggers (though they'll hardly advertise that fact) but fail to verify the facts before using them in their stories. Journalists have long been at the top of the news totem pole, as they should be, burdened with the responsibilities of their work, but paid for it. Bloggers, some working for free, others per click, should be treated as 21st century versions of news sources. Like sources of old, they are frequently anonymous and their trustworthiness is difficult to judge, especially when there is a profit motive in them breaking "news."
The only reason we wonder if whether blogs should be treated like traditional news media is because we wrongly think of them as news sources and not what they are: either personal reflections (of a sort) or communicators of gossip and innuendo intended to make a profit. It doesn't mean we have no right to get angry when they spread false information (especially if they're about ourselves), but many of the blogs we visit, either simply by visiting the site or by clicking on ads, means the blogger gets paid. That is the problem. Most respected news organizations would never pay their sources, so why do we pay people whose motive for publishing is unknown to us?
We have traditionally read newspapers, magazines, journals (and their online equivalents) because they do the dirty work of assessing the validity of sources for us. The more we pay bloggers (indirectly as it may be) the less goes to professional journalists, and the more blogging and journalism align. It's not a situation we should relish. We all like a little gossip sometimes, but by crying out that journalists and bloggers should be held to the same set of standards, we act as if they are equals, which they are not. In time, those bloggers who identify themselves may enter the 21 century pantheon of journalism, but in most cases, the bloggers who draw most of our ire for false and malicious posts are faceless, anonymous and destined to remain something distinct from journalism.
I am not saying bloggers should lay their keyboards down. They should not, because the power of the internet as a tool of free speech should be embraced. There is power in anonymity for good as well as evil, and to lay down the gauntlet of ethics on bloggers means anonymity would be lost. Their power as whistle blowers is too important for that to be happen. We must, however, stop treating them like journalists.
The public must start by voting with its mice. Those bloggers who build reputations of gossip and slander should be ignored, as a reporter would any discredited source. While their specter will never disappear, it will lessen as the profit motive is removed from the equation. Spend more time with the multitude of news sites with identified reporters and editors. The more you read, the more confident you can be in the information. No, they're not perfect either, but they are far less likely to be wrong or to engage in outright lying.
If we keep treating bloggers like journalists, we'll have no professional journalists, let alone ethical standards, left. They'll be no money left to pay them after all. So when a 21st century Paul Revere comes crying in the night warning us of a coming catastrophe, we will be left to take their words on faith alone. Imagine if that had happened in Revere's day.