Bloggers and Standards

blog (blŏg) pronunciation
n.

A weblog.
intr.v., blogged, blog·ging, blogs.

To write entries in, add material to, or maintain a weblog.

[(WE)BLOG.]
blog·ger n.

from http://www.answers.com/blogger&r=67

But more bloggers, and blog readers, are starting to ask whether at least the most prominent blogs with the highest traffic shouldn't hold themselves to the same high standards to which they hold other media.

A blogger is a writer who uses a web log. No fraternity to join or "at-will" job to lose or corporate policy to follow.

This Times editorial illustrates they still don't get it. Blanket statements about blogs are nonsensical. A writer has to be judged as an individual who has earned a reputation. If they're reliable then they're worth listening to and if not, don't listen to them. If they use facts and uncover scandals like bloggers uncovering "Jeff Gannon", then they're reliable and worth following and citing.

Every mainstream news organization has its own sets of ethics rules, but all of them agree broadly on what constitutes ethical journalism. Information should be verified before it is printed, and people who are involved in a story should be given a chance to air their viewpoints, especially if they are under attack. Reporters should avoid conflicts of interest, even significant appearances of conflicts, and disclose any significant ones. Often, a conflict means being disqualified to cover a story or a subject. When errors are discovered or pointed out by internal or external sources, they must be corrected. And there should be a clear wall between editorial content and advertising.

In fact the Times arguing their is a common MSM journalism standard today is silly. The standard Fox and NY Daily News use isn't the same standard as the Times - we hope - so why claim their is a uniform ethos? The Times is still pretending they're part of a fraternity of corporate media where objectivity and professionalism rule the day. Fox understands there are no rules.

The MSM is held to a legal standard of libel and slander and that's it. If they get it wrong, they're wealthy enough to be sued. That's the legal standard. In a news room it's up to the employer - who have a myriad of interests. There's nothing else. Who at the Times has had the balls to hold Fox Chief Political correspondent Brit Hume accountable for his on-air lies? Yet the Times is tell us bloggers have no uniform standard.

What about AM radio? Why not ask about journalistic standards for Rush, Savage and the rest of the lying, hate mongering loonies on rightwing AM radio? How can Rush rant about blowjobs and get away with it if the Times were concerned about standards? Rush is popular and corporate so the Times will not touch him. Bloggers are an easy target.

Weblogs are like NY Times columns. Brooks and Tienery play word games and outright lie in their NY Times columns while Krugman, Rich and Herbert produce thoughtful columns. Friedman and Kristof are as unfocused and useless as Ragnast the Brown Wizard. We know who's worth reading and believing despite the seven appearing in the same pages under identical management. Before the Times chases their tail on setting standards for public speech, the Times should set the example and better police their opinion column pages - only seven people - and also start dissecting the failures in MSM. The Daily Show is filling a gap the Times should address before focusing on Bloggers and Thomas Friedman noted how many educated people are getting their "news" from Comedy Central.

And bloggers rarely disclose whether they are receiving money from the people or causes they write about.

1. Does the MSM universially require pundits and experts disclose whether they are recieving money from people or cases they write about? Does CNN? No.
2. Have any of the previously mentioned "left" Bloggers like Kos violated this standard? No.

Many bloggers who criticize the MSM's ethics, however, are in the anomalous position of holding themselves to lower standards, or no standards at all. That may well change. Ana Marie Cox, who edits Wonkette, notes that blogs are still "a very young medium," and that "things have yet to be worked out." Before long, leading blogs could have ethics guidelines and prominently posted corrections policies.

What's the point? If they haven't any standards and are reckless then ignore them. The MSM should start correcting and punishing the reckless MSM pundits, shows and hate radio, that fail to hold to established journalistic standards.