Do we need a Blogging Code of Ethics?
By Dana R Pico Posted in User Blogs — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Debbie Frisch, a PhD in psychology and an instructor at the University of Arizona (a temporary position, not a tenure track job), set off an internet firestorm with some comments aimed at Jeff Goldstein, the host of Protein Wisdom. The lovely Dr. Frisch wrote, as Mr Goldstein put together in one post for us:
I'd like to hear more about your "tyke" by the way. Girl? Boy? Toddler? Teen? Are you still married to the woman you ephed to give birth to the tyke?Tell all, bro!
And
[...] as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your "tyke" it wouldn't slow me down one iota. You aren't "human" to me.
[...]
So if you could just tell me the AGE and SEX of your "tyke," I'd be stoked!
Thanx!
And
Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby.
Are you still married to the woman you humped to produce the toddler?
And
I reiterate: If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn't give a damn.
Patterico has been all over this one, with stories here, here, here, here and here. And Powerline, which gets more visitors than God, put forth a very minor statement -- but a minor reference on Powerline gets you a lot of attention!
It has cost Dr. Frisch something, something big: not only did she see the need to apologize, but she felt the need to quit her job. She wrote:
I wrote some inflammatory comments at a blog by a guy named Jeff Goldstein called protein wisdom that infuriated many bloggers and commenters. Many of these bloggers emailed my boss at the University of Arizona to tell on me.
In hindsight, the things I wrote were over the line of nastiness. I apologize to Mr. Goldstein.
I have resigned from the University of Arizona so there is no need for other enraged people to write to administrators there. I am a temporary worker there and I am in Oregon for the summer.
Some blogs have posted comments that I perceive to be physically threatening. I have contacted the FBI and the Pajamas Media staff to determine how to proceed with this aspect of this unbelievable experience.
My intention in this post is to de-escalate the situation. The comments that started this all were nasty, not threatening. But I feel very threatened by the response.
Jeff - I lost my job. You won. Could you call off the troops?
Whether coincidentally or otherwise, Mr Goldstein's site suffered a major denial of service attack at about that time; any comments he might have wished to make to defuse the situation were unavailable to readers.
Dr. Frisch was roundly criticized, by the left as well as the right. There was a bit of sniping that some of the commenters from the left weren't quite as harsh in their condemnations as they could have been, and maybe that's to be expected, but I consider that to be a relatively minor issue; other than a couple of wild-eyed leftists, Dr. Frisch received no support at all.
Other than commenting on Patterico and, once, on Dr Frisch's site (as polite a comment as was possible, by the way, but her site doesn't track individual comments), I might not have written an article about it, were it not for some other issues. Oliver Willis and The Liberal Avenger both ran stories in which it was claimed that the publication of a plaintiff's family's name and address by Stop the ACLU forced them to move. I thought blaming Stop the ACLU for the harassment the family faced to be a bit ridiculous; they were harassed by locals in the small Delaware town in which they lived (including their kids being harassed by other kids in their public school), and the locals didn't need the national website to know who filed the offending lawsuit. But that doesn't mean I think that it's right for Stop the ACLU to be publishing that stuff, fully intending that the information be used to write or e-mail or telephone plaintiffs to <strike>harass</strike> urge them to drop the case.
Personal information published over the web, for the purpose of getting someone harassed or fired or ridiculed has been happening way too often; the episode I just mentioned was simply one of the last. And it's come from both the right and the left, with the victims being on both the right and the left. No, I don't care who did it first, nor do I care if one "side" is guiltier than the other; that just shouldn't be done, period.
In thinking about this, I decided to see if there was some sort of Bloggers Code of Ethics available; after all, I can't be the first person to think of such a thing! A Google<sup>TM</sup> search returned a lot of hits, but not much really good information. The best I found was this:
- Some bloggers recently have been debating what, if any, ethics the Weblog community should follow. Since not all bloggers are journalists and the Weblog form is more casual, they argue they shouldn't be expected to follow the same ethics codes journalists are. But responsible bloggers should recognize that they are publishing words publicly, and therefore have certain ethical obligations to their readers, the people they write about, and society in general.
- Never plagiarize.
- Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
- Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
- Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
- Never publish information they know is inaccurate -- and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it's in doubt.
- Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
- Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
- Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
- Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
- Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.
- Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
- Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
- Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
- Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
- Explain each Weblog's mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers' conduct.
- Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
- Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.
- Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.
- Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.
- Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
CyberJournalist.net has created a model Bloggers' Code of Ethics, by modifying the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics for the Weblog world. These are just guidelines -- in the end it is up to individual bloggers to choose their own best practices. CyberJournalist.net follows this code and urges other Weblogs to adopt this one or similar practices.
Integrity is the cornerstone of credibility. Bloggers who adopt this code of principles and these standards of practice not only practice ethical publishing, but convey to their readers that they can be trusted.
A BLOGGERS' CODE OF ETHICS
Be Honest and Fair
Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Bloggers should:
Minimize Harm
Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.
Bloggers should:
Be Accountable
Bloggers should:
I'd add a couple of things:
Other suggestions could certainly be made.
CyberJournalist.net's attempt at a code of ethics didn't really get very far. And while I'm just a small-potatoes blogger, I'm sending this to a few larger sites, including a couple involved in the Frisch dispute, as well as making it a RedState diary entry. Maybe some bloggers with more readership and more influence than I have can get something done.
Cross-posted on Common Sense Political Thought.
"Blogging" is not a word. It's called writing. You're writing... just because it's on "the Web" is not justification to sex it up with a new word. People have been writing on the Web for over a decade. Only self-important pseudo-intellectuals need to call it anything other than writing...
I applaud your effort. Might work if you can tighten it up.
The problem is, in the end, jerks will be jerks. And this business with Goldstein didn't involve a blogger, but a commenter on Jeff's blog. Comments are where most of the problems come in, even at (or especially at) Kos and the other left-wing blogs. Good luck trying to rein in commenters.
Online Integrity, which RedState has joined:
. . . that enforcement would be both voluntary and up to the site administrators. Bloggers subscribing to such a code would be, if they stated that they were following the code, setting themselves up as the arbiters of their own honesty; any time they violated what they promised to do, other people would see it.
The blogosphere is self corrective; if you screw up, other bloggers pile on, and your commenters correct you with info they've picked up elsewhere.
Inappropriate publication of personal info is also denounced by other bloggers.
I think the system works, and is actually superior to the so called fact checking of the MSM.
It's foul. There is a vocabulary of internet words-that-mean-something*, and then there are pollutions like "buh-lawg" ...
By the time the hated B word had developed, it was clear by context (& the ubiquity of teh W3b) that you weren't stapling flyers to telephone poles, or doing a mass mailing. It's the height of laziness. And I know a little something about laziness...
*If you are composing an analysis or commentary, and you post it to a site that someone is hosting, you're doing what has been done by bulletin board services and the newsgroups for decades. You just don't have to work as hard to have it hosted or to have it found.
Does that have something to do with the information superhighway?
how such a "code of ethics" would be enforced short of banning. She could have been banned from Protein Wisdom in short order but Jeff explained that he didn't because he wanted to allow her to gather enough rope to hang herself (not exactly the way he put it).
I believe any blog owner is free to establish their own code of ethics. Also, the internet being how it is, there is no way to really ban someone as it is possible they could continue posting under a different name from a different address.
It's a great idea, I just don't see a way of putting it into practice. The easiest way is for each blog to clearly state what is and what is not tolerated. Some blogs don't like any dissent or disagreement with the owner, fine, state that. Other blogs have a set of "blog cops" that can made decisions on a case by case basis. Fine, state that too.
The easiest way to eliminate problems is to state very clearly what is not tolerated (clearly stated expectations) and consistant enforcement of those rules (clearly defined consquences). It takes a combination of a clear policy and a thick skin to be effective and having both is a rarity in the blogosphere. Some people are over the top in their postings and some people have sensative egos when reading things and those things vary from person to person and blog owner to blog owner.
Under your plan, would there be some central database of violators so they could be banned from all participating blogs?
That's what site administrators do.
A website could have a stated position that comments in violation of the code would be deleted, or it could state that such comments would stand, and be subject to public scorn for the violations.
Different violations could be handled differently, of course. Calling someone the slang term for the human rectum might be considered a violation, but since it rarely wins arguments, a site administrator might leave it up to expose just how weak the commenter's position is. Publishing someone's address or saying, as the lovely Dr Frisch chose to do, that the commenter hoped someone else's kids would be killed, could get pulled immediately and the commenter banned.
Though our ACLU story has become quite the talk on the lefty blogs, the family in question moved out of the area before their lawsuit was filed in 2005. That does not excuse the despicable act of printing their information, but it does let you know that the acts of Stop the ACLU did not force the family out, much to the chagrin of Kos and the lefties.
...I'd ask Gran'pa Gore about it...
Well, mujadaddy, that's how new words are created: by people developing and using them. "Blogging" certainly does mean writing, but the word also carries the information that the writing to which it refers is being posted on a website, rather than in The Philadelphia Inquirer or carved on a granite monument or part of the Great American Novel.
Perhaps you'd like to consider it a slang term; that's fine with me! But it's a term that is widely used, and normally understood by the listeners or readers. That makes it a word, as nearly as I can see.