New Media, New Standards? Ethics in Online Journalism
The line between “professional” journalists and citizen journalists is continually blurring.
Many think this is a good thing, but to others, the potential for a blurring in fairness, transparency and even “blogola” opens the door to issues beyond a pajama-clad guy sitting in his basement blogging his grocery list.
The Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists and Minnesota Public Radio’s upcoming UBS Forum is Monday, February 25, 2008 and will feature an examination of where online journalism is and where it’s going.
Host Bob Collins, the creator of MPR’s News Cut will be joined by Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, Chuck Olsen (pictured above), and other tbd bloggers, editors and reporters.
This event is free and open to the public but registration is required. Go HERE to RVSP.
Related posts:
Gilmor’s a good guy. I’ve met and heard him speak twice and have his book "We the Media." All good stuff. I’m going to try to get to this.
The full list of participants is here.
Registered!
I’m really looking forward to Steve Gillmor. I’m a little tired of hearing the same people around here have this same conversation over and over again.
And by "the same people" I do not mean Chuck.
I mean all the ex-MSM graybeard journalists who have found homes at online publications with more editorial freedom but who still think they’re better than everybody because they’re ex-MSM journalists. I’ll buy "more experienced" but not "inherently better".
(Also, no offense meant to my favorite graybeard, Peter Fleck.)
Another blogger asked me the other day why I’m never on any of these panels.. since I’m probably one of the most visible MSM journalists blogging. It’s a good question.
I share Erica’s frustration with some of these discussions. All the MSM journalists get into a huff about ethics and standards and some very important things, and don’t move the dialogue forward. I’d like to see more MSM outreach to bloggers– to share some of the ethics we find important, and more blogger outreach to MSM to question some of the conventions we engage in trying to appear "objective."
Should journalists disclose their political views? Vote in caucuses? Should bloggers disclose their identity? Their employers? Why is using anonymous sources tricky? Those are interesting issues.
But then again, what do I know?
Yeah, why the heck aren’t you a special invited eggspert JD? Please do show up if you can.
I share your frustration/boredom with these things too, but since this one focuses on ethics it could be good. All the questions you ask, Jason, need to be faced head on. I think new media needs to be less ambiguous on these issues and talk about what works and what doesn’t with traditional journalistic ethics and standards.
I was at the Life After Newspapers forum last November (with Joel Kramer, Eric Black, Steve Perry) and felt like the majority of the day/tone was really down on blogs as an authentic journalistic medium - especially b/c of ethics.
Yet last seven months prior, I spoke on a local panel with Kate Parry from the Strib’s OmBlog (now dead?) and another PR guy about the changing landscape of journalism as unavoidable fact. From my follow-up post: "Ever-apparent following our discussion is this: as more people rely on new media resources like Wikipedia or even Metroblogging, the onus falls to readers/commenters/editors to ensure truth, plagiarism and balanced dialog remain at a high standard. Mainstream media outlets (e.g., Star Tribune, WCCO) are still quite critical to society, but the way their audience interacts and uses the information they put out is changing."
I felt like the speakers at "Life After Newspapers" were six months behind the rest of us.
It would be fascinating to have DeRusha, Julio and a few of the other local MSM reporters — who use new media to augment their traditional roles — participate in this ethics discussion.
But perhaps that’s another panel altogether. Go get ‘em, Chuck.
I agree, the ethics part of it is a critical component.
Bloggers are in the position of having to prove themselves and develop a reputation. The thing about the blogging (and podcasting/videoblogging) medium is that there’s the opportunity for immediate feedback. So if a blogger/CJ puts up something that is just plain wrong, people will tell them right away. It’s that feedback that builds or destroys your reputation online.
So, like Greg said, readers and commenters are vetting you when you post. You’ll quickly learn to get it straight (or as straight as possible) before you post. For MSM, it’s presumed that the vetting process happens prior to publication.
The mechanism is different. But, like Jason said, it behooves both the MSM and the CJs to share what they think is best about their methods instead of yammering on about how one way or the other is the "right" way to do it.
I should’ve gone to Life After Newspapers to smackdown Joel Kramer. :-) We’ve had the smackdown in person though. Good man, just on a really really high horse and wrong about citizen journalism.
Yes, that’s the one thing I feel like I (we) have been repeating for a few years now: It’s about trust. MSM started out with our trust but they’re losing it, for good reason, but of course we need them. Bloggers start out without that automatic trust of the medium, but the individual (or organization like The UpTake) builds it up over time. Like you say Erica, it’s done in concert with the "people formerly known as the audience."
I haven’t really heard much from Dan Gillmor in the last year or two and will be curious for his take. When I asked him "are blogs journalism" in 2004 he was already tired of the question.
It’s worth noting that there IS no panel, so questions about why someone isn’t on it are relatively irrelevant. Gillmor is the guest. But the panel is the audience.
And besides, it’s not about who’s important who isn’t important enough. It’s about standards and ethics.
And, Jason, just for the record… I — a mainstream journalist — was one of the first "journalists" in the Twin Cities to declare why I don’t vote. And the issue of whether a journalist should vote was raised — by me — on Polinaut almost two years ago.
I’m just sayin’…
Just for the record, Bob, journalists who won’t vote on "ethical grounds" is as bad idea today as it was two years ago — maybe even more so. It’s your choice, but I think it is a bad message to send to news bosses and the young scribes.
The US Army ingoraged me to vote when I was overseas — even if that vote was against my commander in chief at the time. G. Washington said it best: "When we took up the Soldier, we did not set aside the Citizen.."
Journalists should NOT have to give up their right to vote, IMHO. That includes the right to caucus and vote in a primary, where your political affiliation would be declared.
Fantastic discussion here. Erica and I have been asked to live blog the forum by MPR. Be looking for that right here on Monday.