Gene Foreman is an exceptionally conscientious and honorable man. Like most such people I don't think he realizes just how exceptional. It is, in fact, the quality of the person, not the precision of the rules, that counts most in matters of ethics. That is what I find the following somewhat naive and ill-informed:
The common practice of allowing newspaper staffers to write unedited blogs for online readers annoys [Foreman]."I detest that," he says with understated vehemence that is as close as he comes to swearing. "I've read arguments written by intelligent people who say, 'Let's let the readers be our editors, that if we get something wrong, they call us, we check it out, and we put up a correction.' Now, this is really, really bad because harm can be done by erroneous information getting online."
Harm can also be done by erroneous information getting into print, which nowadays means, ipso facto, to be online. Wonder what he thinks of this and this and this and this and ... (The phrase "layers of editors and fact-checkers" has come to be used derisively on line.)
Which may help explain why Just 4% Trust Reporters More Than Themselves on What’s Good for America.
Although I agree with the main point of your post, your first example is to an advert (the article concerned has been taken down so I can't check what it says myself!). Advertising isn't editorial.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I also agree that you can pick up many mistakes in the MSM that should have been picked up -- the same can certainly be said of blogs. There is masses of wrong rubbish out there in the unedited blogosphere and internet.
I do of course agree that it seems very bizarre that a serious commentator is saying that he doesn't "agree" with journalists and editors writing blogs, as it is so common nowadays in all major publications - blogs have become another part of a media company's output, along with podcasts, videos etc. What's the worry?
I'd like to respond to the comments in the blog and in the post by Maxine. There seem to be a couple of misunderstandings here. Of course, I am concerned about errors in the print edition, but the fact is that newspapers have an editing process. However imperfect that process for the print edition may be, it beats putting news onto the Internet without ANY editing, which I fear is happening often. As for Maxine's post, I'd like to be clear that I'm not opposed to reporters' blogs per se; I'm opposed to blogs that are not edited before they are put online. (I'm also opposed to reporters' blogs that express the reporters' opinions about the people and events they cover -- but that's another part of the book.)
ReplyDeleteI'd like to respond to the comments in the blog and in the post by Maxine. There seem to be a couple of misunderstandings here. Of course, I am concerned about errors in the print edition, but the fact is that newspapers have an editing process. However imperfect that process for the print edition may be, it beats putting news onto the Internet without ANY editing, which I fear is happening often. As for Maxine's post, I'm not opposed to reporters' blogs per se; I'm opposed to blogs that are not edited before they are put online. (I'm also opposed to reporters' blogs that express the reporters' opinions about the people and events they cover -- but that's another part of the book.)
ReplyDeleteWell, I am in fact an editor, Gene, so you won't get anything but agreement from me on the value of the editing process!
ReplyDeleteFrank's asked me to comment again, so I'll just say that I don't object on any ethical grounds to journalists writing unedited blogs. I do, however, think that any piece of writing, whether or not on a blog, benefits from being edited (by an independent person).
ReplyDeleteA blog being published at a publisher's website as part of that publication (as you see all the time now, in all major newspapers and magazines) is still journalism even if it is not edited.
However, blog posts written by individuals aren't "journalism". We have this debate quite a bit in the science area, where people who just happen to blog about science because they are scientists and they like it, regard themselves as journalists and want to recieve embargoed press releases, etc. The two entities are different - being published under the auspicies of a publication which is responsible for the content you put out, whether or not it is edited first; and writing as an indvidual.
And then there are "PR" blogs - many of which are very ethical - for example information, educational, funding, charity blogs etc. But they aren't independent journalism- they are usually written by someone paid by the organisation (worthy or not) to write about it in a positive light. Nothing wrong with that (so long as these terms are clear to readers) but it isn't journalism.