The soil, the soil, the soil!
I was planning to take apart line-by-line Elizabeth Spiers' line-by-line taking-apartion of Adam Cohen's NYTimes article on journalism/blogger ethics but I've reconsidered since 1) she's a friend (even though I believe friends should constantly be participating in mutual toe-keeping maintenance 2) she once offered me part-time employment that I respectfully (okay, most disgracefully) declined 3) she wrote a story about me that's gonna be in a book.
Oh fuck it, why not, game on. If you're following along at home: Adam Cohen is in bold, Elizabeth is italicized, and I will remain format-agnostic.
The Latest Rumbling in the Blogosphere: Questions About Ethics
Is this really the latest rumbling in the blogosphere? Are bloggers up in arms about blogger ethics? Cohen argues (in the actual editorial) that they're not, and that it's a problem. Perhaps the essay would have been better titled, "The Latest Rumbling in the MSMosphere: Questions About Ethics... In the Blogosphere."
Yes Elizabeth, it's as much a rumble as the F train under my tenement building. If it's not mended in time then the whole thing could come crashing down. I have in fact tried to lead a discussion on blogging ethics after the recent Mobygate but no one seemed interested. One can safely assume that Cohen reads Young Manhattanite.
[Next part is about Arthur Schlesinger Jr. blogging and a plug for her own Garrett Graff of FishbowlDC and his White House press pass. I refuse to address tactless self-promotion.]
Bloggers are not only getting access; they have also been getting results. The Drudge Report, of course, is famous for pushing stories, often with a rightward spin, onto the national media agenda, but it is not alone. Daily Kos did a brilliant job last fall of pressuring Sinclair Broadcasting not to show a hatchet-job documentary about John Kerry. And Joshua Micah Marshall has been rattling Congress with his entertaining and influential listing of where individual members stand on Social Security privatization. Blogs helped to shape, in some cases in major ways, some of the biggest stories of the last year - the presidential election, tsunami relief, Dan Rather.
Minor quibbles here: Matt Drudge has publicly and repeatedly denied that Drudge Report is a blog. And by most standard definitions—i.e., commentary in the form of posts, reverse chronology, permalinks—it's probably not. And Josh Marshall is a blogger who also writes for mainstream media publications as a journalist. Journalist? Blogger? Animal, vegetable, mineral? Does Cohen have a litmus test for separating the two? But the core point, presumably, is that bloggers are actually affecting current events, which has proven to be true in some cases.
Cohen is actually promoting the accomplishments of blogs while Elizabeth seems pained to agree with him on any point and kicks a nasty "presumably" qualifier in his face.
The thing about influence is that, as bloggers well know, it is only a matter of time before people start trying to hold you accountable.
What makes Cohen think that this isn't already happening, and that it hasn't been happening since blogs first appeared on the Internet? No, blogs generally don't have paid fact-checkers and teams of lawyers to review copy. But the lack of formal institutional enforcement mechanisms doesn't mean that blogs have no accountability. Blogs depend on their credibility to maintain readership. A blog with no credibility is a blog with no readers. And tolerance for losing reader trust is much lower for blogs than it is for mainstream media outlets. I was appalled by the Jayson Blair scandal, but as is obvious, I haven't stopped reading the Times. If a well-read and trusted blogger pulled the same stunt and got caught, it would be the end of the associated blog. The readers have no tolerance for it.
Besides the obvious realization that 95% of blogs just regurgitate mainstream (or any) news stories with their own spin making this whole discussion practically irrevelant, I would like you to give examples of when reader intolerance has brought down well-read and trusted bloggers due to their appalling lack of credibility. Has this kind of reader revolt ever happened? If a blogger pulled a Jayson Blair I'm pretty sure his/her traffic and audience would blow up (not down), not to mention securing a place in line after Dana Vachon for a book deal. If you're so quick to demand Cohen give cases of the "many" (as you do below) then you have to name names here.
Bloggers are so used to thinking of themselves as outsiders, and watchdogs of the LSM (that's Lame Stream Media), that many have given little thought to what ethical rules should apply in their online world.
Who are these "many" who have "given little thought"? Is that a Lame Stream Overgeneralization or just Lame Stream Solipsism?
First, what do you call the people who attacked Dan Rather and Eason Jordan if not outsider watchdogs? (Yeah yeah Jarvis, they're "citizen journalists.") Second, read my last sentence above.
Some insist that they do not need journalistic ethics because they are not journalists, but rather activists, or humorists, or something else entirely.
Many people who publish in mainstream media as activists, humorists or something else entirely insist exactly the same thing.
Poo on both of you. Why can't people who don't claim to be journalists be left in opie-edie mumbo-jumbo peace? If they're not "journalists" - mainstream, citizen, or otherwise - then don't go fishing for facts or the truth in that ice hole. (Man, my first "fish" reference but I was hoping to use Phishbowl. That's unlikely.)
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.
Again, Cohen neglects to name names. Who are these high-traffic bloggers who fail so miserably to meet journalistic standards?
Shit Cohen, you're losing me here. Stay on message!! "Bloggers are not journalists!"
Every mainstream news organization has its own sets of ethics rules, but all of them agree broadly on what constitutes ethical journalism.
If that were true, Poynter could dismantle most of its website and Jim Romenesko probably wouldn't get paid to blog. If everyone agrees broadly, why are junkets (which are almost never disclosed in mainstream media publications) okay for some MSM outlets and absolutely unacceptable for others?
What part of "broadly" don't you understand, Elizabeth? The man just said each organization has their own set of ethics rules with broader agreements industry-wide. Do you get to define "broadly" and specifically include junkets in it? Calm yourself. Take a trip to the Jersey Shore, expense it.
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.
[Elizabeths sharpens her teeth on a stone grinder and attempts a relentless barrage of bites without stopping to swallow. I'll try to condense her remarks.]
All of the high-traffic bloggers I know, including several mentioned by Cohen—Josh Marshall, Ana Cox, etc.—attempt to verify information before reporting.
Is that so? Give examples please. I seem to remember hearing Ana talk at SXSW in March where she defiantly claimed she doesn't do any reporting/fact-checking but only commentary. She was adamant about this ridiculous discussion of "blogging vs. journalism" that what she does on Wonkette is all the former and none of the latter. Also, it's funny how the people mentioned here are/were legitimate pre-blogging journalists. If you are so insistent that they adhere to ethics as bloggers then maybe they picked up some good habits from their mainstream media stints? Nah, you're right, that couldn't be the case. [Elizabeth then tries to demonstrate her next point by referencing Maureen Dowd. Automatic DQ.]
When bloggers make mistakes, they correct them—faster and in a much more direct fashion than most mainstream media outlets...blah blah...Jason Calacanis...blah blah...Is anyone really going to take the time to find out to which piece a correction pertaining to "an article in the Education Life section" is referring? Doubtful.
Shame on you Elizabeth for mocking the Education Life section as if it's considerably less important than every other crap part of the paper. Readers will no more see a strike-through blog correction after the fact than a buried newspaper correction. Wrong info gets spread just the same in both outlets if the original source of it lights a strong enough fire. Besides, what would some blogs have to write about if they weren't digging deep into the correction page .
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 my experience, bloggers are much more vigilant about this than mainstream media. I've never heard a blogger express concern about how editorial product was going to affect advertising revenues. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about mainstream media. And again, Cohen lacks examples. If this is actually a widespread problem, surely those examples exist.
"In your experience"? So a couple of blogging years and one in the mainstream media (does that count as seven blog years?) under your belt makes you confident to declare blogger vigilance is greater than the MSM on this issue? Hold on, what's the phrase I'm looking for....oh right: Please give examples.
Bloggers often invoke these journalistic standards in criticizing the MSM, and insist on harsh punishment when they are violated. [Insert Dan Rather, Bush's National Guard Service, Eason Jordan, etc.]
More Lame Stream Overgeneralizing. Cohen noticeably fails to mention the not-insignificant-and-possibly-even-larger blogger constituencies who thought it was ridiculous that Jordan resigned and the Rather bloggers who really just wanted a correction.
Adam should thank you Elizabeth for making his point for him. The fact that a smaller group of bloggers than those of the majority opinion was able to drown out the others is precisely the problem. What happened to blogging's democratizing effect here?
But Mr. Rather's and Mr. Jordan's misdeeds would most likely not have landed them in trouble in the world of bloggers, where few rules apply. Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first - or calling the target at all. They rarely have procedures for running a correction.
Cohen made these points earlier in his columns, and I've already addressed them. Alas, annoying expository redundancy is, it seems, as much a feature of mainstream media as it is the blogosphere.
Then there's no need for me to explain again why he's right and you're wrong.
The wall between their editorial content and advertising is often nonexistent. (Wonkette, a witty and well-read Washington blog, posts a weekly shout-out inside its editorial text to its advertisers, including partisan ones like Democrats.org.)
That Wonkette writes a thank-you post to advertisers does not mean the wall between editorial content and advertising is non-existent. In fact, the Times business section reported yesterday that advertising does not influence editorial content at Gawker—unless I suppose, there's some concern that readers would mistake a post clearly labeled "Shout out to our advertisers" for reportage. (This "fact checking" of which Cohen speaks…does the New York Times have it? Maybe he should have called the Business section for comment.)
I refer to Jason Calacanis who once said he just barely tolerates Gawker Media's practice of editorializing advertiser "shout-outs" in blog posts. Do these posts count as part of the famed daily quota of 12? I have no idea but if so then they are getting paid to blog about advertisers and you lose this argument. In fact, if that's really the case, let's just close up shop entirely because the system would be too corrupt to fix.
And bloggers rarely disclose whether they are receiving money from the people or causes they write about.
My inner conspiracy theorist thinks that it's perfectly rational to worry that some blogs are pushing products they're paid to promote, and my inner cynic says that everyone has a price. But are these highly trafficked blogs that worry Cohen likely to risk credibility and their readership to do that? Paid "fake" blogging is a recurring theme when I talk to public relations professionals, and the dominant line of questioning is, "Is it happening?" and then, usually in a lower voice, "How can I do it?" My answers are, "not that I know of," and "you can't—or not for very long, anyway." Cohen fails to entertain the possibility that he's not seeing these disclosures because bloggers are not receiving money from the people or causes that they write about.
Yet you can't prove otherwise and if there's a cheap buck to be made you can bet your second-hand boa-constrictor that blogs are being infiltrated.
A few bloggers have begun calling for change. There have even been fledgling attempts to create ethical guidelines, like the ones found at Cyberjournalist.net. Defenders of the status quo argue that ethics rules are not necessary in the blogosphere because truth emerges through "collaboration," and that bias and conflicts of interest are rooted out by "transparency." But "collaboration" is a haphazard way of defending against dishonesty and slander, and blogs are actually not all that transparent. MSM journalists write under their own names. Someone would be likely to notice if a newspaper reporter covering a campaign was also on the campaign's staff. But it is hard to know who many bloggers are, and whether they are paid to take the positions they are espousing.
I defy Adam Cohen to name one high-traffic blogger who doesn't write under his or her own name. To review the list of people he namechecked: Arianna Huffington, Garrett Graff, Matt Drudge, Josh Marshall, Ana Cox, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. I'm fairly certain that none of those are pseudonyms. And the perpetually iterative paid blogger question has already been addressed.
Garrett Graff? I hate to get all "foreign correspondent" on you but that can't possibly be his real name. None of the others sound plausible either, except for Matt Drudge. But you already said he wasn't a blogger, right?
Richard Hofstadter noted in "The Age of Reform" that American reformers had been prone to an "enormous amount of self-accusation." Throughout history, reform movements have ostentatiously held themselves to higher standards than the institutions they attacked....Tammany Hall reformers...Members of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, etc. 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.
A lack of formalized standards does not automatically translate to "lower standards" or "no standards." It doesn't mean that blogs have no ethics and no correction policies, either. But most blogs are the voice and work of individuals, and those individuals are no more likely to develop formal written guidelines and policies than any individual reporter is likely to do for him or herself.
Elizabeth forgets that the owners of the two biggest professional blog networks wanted to start an ethics committee to address these very issues. They were met with a blank stare. And a gassy burp. Cohen smartly realizes that the bloggers will eventually have no choice if they want to play journalism with the big boys.
Bloggers may need to institutionalize ethics policies to avoid charges of hypocrisy. But the real reason for an ethical upgrade is that it is the right way to do journalism, online or offline. As blogs grow in readers and influence, bloggers should realize that if they want to reform the American media, that is going to have to include reforming themselves.
Cohen's entire essay is based on the premise that bloggers inherently do journalism the wrong way. What he refuses to acknowledge is the blogosphere is organic and fiercely Darwinian. The liars, the cheats, those who would prostitute themselves for a high-CPM BlogAd—they don't stand a chance. One slip-up and their readership is gone, never to return.
Hello (2x), I ask you to state when this has happened as I did before. Then again, my whole premise is that 95% of bloggers are not practicing journalism on their blogs which makes all of this moot. Yeah, I could have just stated that in one sentence instead of this shit mountain no one will ever read. (Gage, I am sure you are the only one who got this far. It was a bit much, right?)
Oh fuck it, why not, game on. If you're following along at home: Adam Cohen is in bold, Elizabeth is italicized, and I will remain format-agnostic.
The Latest Rumbling in the Blogosphere: Questions About Ethics
Is this really the latest rumbling in the blogosphere? Are bloggers up in arms about blogger ethics? Cohen argues (in the actual editorial) that they're not, and that it's a problem. Perhaps the essay would have been better titled, "The Latest Rumbling in the MSMosphere: Questions About Ethics... In the Blogosphere."
Yes Elizabeth, it's as much a rumble as the F train under my tenement building. If it's not mended in time then the whole thing could come crashing down. I have in fact tried to lead a discussion on blogging ethics after the recent Mobygate but no one seemed interested. One can safely assume that Cohen reads Young Manhattanite.
[Next part is about Arthur Schlesinger Jr. blogging and a plug for her own Garrett Graff of FishbowlDC and his White House press pass. I refuse to address tactless self-promotion.]
Bloggers are not only getting access; they have also been getting results. The Drudge Report, of course, is famous for pushing stories, often with a rightward spin, onto the national media agenda, but it is not alone. Daily Kos did a brilliant job last fall of pressuring Sinclair Broadcasting not to show a hatchet-job documentary about John Kerry. And Joshua Micah Marshall has been rattling Congress with his entertaining and influential listing of where individual members stand on Social Security privatization. Blogs helped to shape, in some cases in major ways, some of the biggest stories of the last year - the presidential election, tsunami relief, Dan Rather.
Minor quibbles here: Matt Drudge has publicly and repeatedly denied that Drudge Report is a blog. And by most standard definitions—i.e., commentary in the form of posts, reverse chronology, permalinks—it's probably not. And Josh Marshall is a blogger who also writes for mainstream media publications as a journalist. Journalist? Blogger? Animal, vegetable, mineral? Does Cohen have a litmus test for separating the two? But the core point, presumably, is that bloggers are actually affecting current events, which has proven to be true in some cases.
Cohen is actually promoting the accomplishments of blogs while Elizabeth seems pained to agree with him on any point and kicks a nasty "presumably" qualifier in his face.
The thing about influence is that, as bloggers well know, it is only a matter of time before people start trying to hold you accountable.
What makes Cohen think that this isn't already happening, and that it hasn't been happening since blogs first appeared on the Internet? No, blogs generally don't have paid fact-checkers and teams of lawyers to review copy. But the lack of formal institutional enforcement mechanisms doesn't mean that blogs have no accountability. Blogs depend on their credibility to maintain readership. A blog with no credibility is a blog with no readers. And tolerance for losing reader trust is much lower for blogs than it is for mainstream media outlets. I was appalled by the Jayson Blair scandal, but as is obvious, I haven't stopped reading the Times. If a well-read and trusted blogger pulled the same stunt and got caught, it would be the end of the associated blog. The readers have no tolerance for it.
Besides the obvious realization that 95% of blogs just regurgitate mainstream (or any) news stories with their own spin making this whole discussion practically irrevelant, I would like you to give examples of when reader intolerance has brought down well-read and trusted bloggers due to their appalling lack of credibility. Has this kind of reader revolt ever happened? If a blogger pulled a Jayson Blair I'm pretty sure his/her traffic and audience would blow up (not down), not to mention securing a place in line after Dana Vachon for a book deal. If you're so quick to demand Cohen give cases of the "many" (as you do below) then you have to name names here.
Bloggers are so used to thinking of themselves as outsiders, and watchdogs of the LSM (that's Lame Stream Media), that many have given little thought to what ethical rules should apply in their online world.
Who are these "many" who have "given little thought"? Is that a Lame Stream Overgeneralization or just Lame Stream Solipsism?
First, what do you call the people who attacked Dan Rather and Eason Jordan if not outsider watchdogs? (Yeah yeah Jarvis, they're "citizen journalists.") Second, read my last sentence above.
Some insist that they do not need journalistic ethics because they are not journalists, but rather activists, or humorists, or something else entirely.
Many people who publish in mainstream media as activists, humorists or something else entirely insist exactly the same thing.
Poo on both of you. Why can't people who don't claim to be journalists be left in opie-edie mumbo-jumbo peace? If they're not "journalists" - mainstream, citizen, or otherwise - then don't go fishing for facts or the truth in that ice hole. (Man, my first "fish" reference but I was hoping to use Phishbowl. That's unlikely.)
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.
Again, Cohen neglects to name names. Who are these high-traffic bloggers who fail so miserably to meet journalistic standards?
Shit Cohen, you're losing me here. Stay on message!! "Bloggers are not journalists!"
Every mainstream news organization has its own sets of ethics rules, but all of them agree broadly on what constitutes ethical journalism.
If that were true, Poynter could dismantle most of its website and Jim Romenesko probably wouldn't get paid to blog. If everyone agrees broadly, why are junkets (which are almost never disclosed in mainstream media publications) okay for some MSM outlets and absolutely unacceptable for others?
What part of "broadly" don't you understand, Elizabeth? The man just said each organization has their own set of ethics rules with broader agreements industry-wide. Do you get to define "broadly" and specifically include junkets in it? Calm yourself. Take a trip to the Jersey Shore, expense it.
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.
[Elizabeths sharpens her teeth on a stone grinder and attempts a relentless barrage of bites without stopping to swallow. I'll try to condense her remarks.]
All of the high-traffic bloggers I know, including several mentioned by Cohen—Josh Marshall, Ana Cox, etc.—attempt to verify information before reporting.
Is that so? Give examples please. I seem to remember hearing Ana talk at SXSW in March where she defiantly claimed she doesn't do any reporting/fact-checking but only commentary. She was adamant about this ridiculous discussion of "blogging vs. journalism" that what she does on Wonkette is all the former and none of the latter. Also, it's funny how the people mentioned here are/were legitimate pre-blogging journalists. If you are so insistent that they adhere to ethics as bloggers then maybe they picked up some good habits from their mainstream media stints? Nah, you're right, that couldn't be the case. [Elizabeth then tries to demonstrate her next point by referencing Maureen Dowd. Automatic DQ.]
When bloggers make mistakes, they correct them—faster and in a much more direct fashion than most mainstream media outlets...blah blah...Jason Calacanis...blah blah...Is anyone really going to take the time to find out to which piece a correction pertaining to "an article in the Education Life section" is referring? Doubtful.
Shame on you Elizabeth for mocking the Education Life section as if it's considerably less important than every other crap part of the paper. Readers will no more see a strike-through blog correction after the fact than a buried newspaper correction. Wrong info gets spread just the same in both outlets if the original source of it lights a strong enough fire. Besides, what would some blogs have to write about if they weren't digging deep into the correction page .
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 my experience, bloggers are much more vigilant about this than mainstream media. I've never heard a blogger express concern about how editorial product was going to affect advertising revenues. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about mainstream media. And again, Cohen lacks examples. If this is actually a widespread problem, surely those examples exist.
"In your experience"? So a couple of blogging years and one in the mainstream media (does that count as seven blog years?) under your belt makes you confident to declare blogger vigilance is greater than the MSM on this issue? Hold on, what's the phrase I'm looking for....oh right: Please give examples.
Bloggers often invoke these journalistic standards in criticizing the MSM, and insist on harsh punishment when they are violated. [Insert Dan Rather, Bush's National Guard Service, Eason Jordan, etc.]
More Lame Stream Overgeneralizing. Cohen noticeably fails to mention the not-insignificant-and-possibly-even-larger blogger constituencies who thought it was ridiculous that Jordan resigned and the Rather bloggers who really just wanted a correction.
Adam should thank you Elizabeth for making his point for him. The fact that a smaller group of bloggers than those of the majority opinion was able to drown out the others is precisely the problem. What happened to blogging's democratizing effect here?
But Mr. Rather's and Mr. Jordan's misdeeds would most likely not have landed them in trouble in the world of bloggers, where few rules apply. Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first - or calling the target at all. They rarely have procedures for running a correction.
Cohen made these points earlier in his columns, and I've already addressed them. Alas, annoying expository redundancy is, it seems, as much a feature of mainstream media as it is the blogosphere.
Then there's no need for me to explain again why he's right and you're wrong.
The wall between their editorial content and advertising is often nonexistent. (Wonkette, a witty and well-read Washington blog, posts a weekly shout-out inside its editorial text to its advertisers, including partisan ones like Democrats.org.)
That Wonkette writes a thank-you post to advertisers does not mean the wall between editorial content and advertising is non-existent. In fact, the Times business section reported yesterday that advertising does not influence editorial content at Gawker—unless I suppose, there's some concern that readers would mistake a post clearly labeled "Shout out to our advertisers" for reportage. (This "fact checking" of which Cohen speaks…does the New York Times have it? Maybe he should have called the Business section for comment.)
I refer to Jason Calacanis who once said he just barely tolerates Gawker Media's practice of editorializing advertiser "shout-outs" in blog posts. Do these posts count as part of the famed daily quota of 12? I have no idea but if so then they are getting paid to blog about advertisers and you lose this argument. In fact, if that's really the case, let's just close up shop entirely because the system would be too corrupt to fix.
And bloggers rarely disclose whether they are receiving money from the people or causes they write about.
My inner conspiracy theorist thinks that it's perfectly rational to worry that some blogs are pushing products they're paid to promote, and my inner cynic says that everyone has a price. But are these highly trafficked blogs that worry Cohen likely to risk credibility and their readership to do that? Paid "fake" blogging is a recurring theme when I talk to public relations professionals, and the dominant line of questioning is, "Is it happening?" and then, usually in a lower voice, "How can I do it?" My answers are, "not that I know of," and "you can't—or not for very long, anyway." Cohen fails to entertain the possibility that he's not seeing these disclosures because bloggers are not receiving money from the people or causes that they write about.
Yet you can't prove otherwise and if there's a cheap buck to be made you can bet your second-hand boa-constrictor that blogs are being infiltrated.
A few bloggers have begun calling for change. There have even been fledgling attempts to create ethical guidelines, like the ones found at Cyberjournalist.net. Defenders of the status quo argue that ethics rules are not necessary in the blogosphere because truth emerges through "collaboration," and that bias and conflicts of interest are rooted out by "transparency." But "collaboration" is a haphazard way of defending against dishonesty and slander, and blogs are actually not all that transparent. MSM journalists write under their own names. Someone would be likely to notice if a newspaper reporter covering a campaign was also on the campaign's staff. But it is hard to know who many bloggers are, and whether they are paid to take the positions they are espousing.
I defy Adam Cohen to name one high-traffic blogger who doesn't write under his or her own name. To review the list of people he namechecked: Arianna Huffington, Garrett Graff, Matt Drudge, Josh Marshall, Ana Cox, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. I'm fairly certain that none of those are pseudonyms. And the perpetually iterative paid blogger question has already been addressed.
Garrett Graff? I hate to get all "foreign correspondent" on you but that can't possibly be his real name. None of the others sound plausible either, except for Matt Drudge. But you already said he wasn't a blogger, right?
Richard Hofstadter noted in "The Age of Reform" that American reformers had been prone to an "enormous amount of self-accusation." Throughout history, reform movements have ostentatiously held themselves to higher standards than the institutions they attacked....Tammany Hall reformers...Members of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, etc. 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.
A lack of formalized standards does not automatically translate to "lower standards" or "no standards." It doesn't mean that blogs have no ethics and no correction policies, either. But most blogs are the voice and work of individuals, and those individuals are no more likely to develop formal written guidelines and policies than any individual reporter is likely to do for him or herself.
Elizabeth forgets that the owners of the two biggest professional blog networks wanted to start an ethics committee to address these very issues. They were met with a blank stare. And a gassy burp. Cohen smartly realizes that the bloggers will eventually have no choice if they want to play journalism with the big boys.
Bloggers may need to institutionalize ethics policies to avoid charges of hypocrisy. But the real reason for an ethical upgrade is that it is the right way to do journalism, online or offline. As blogs grow in readers and influence, bloggers should realize that if they want to reform the American media, that is going to have to include reforming themselves.
Cohen's entire essay is based on the premise that bloggers inherently do journalism the wrong way. What he refuses to acknowledge is the blogosphere is organic and fiercely Darwinian. The liars, the cheats, those who would prostitute themselves for a high-CPM BlogAd—they don't stand a chance. One slip-up and their readership is gone, never to return.
Hello (2x), I ask you to state when this has happened as I did before. Then again, my whole premise is that 95% of bloggers are not practicing journalism on their blogs which makes all of this moot. Yeah, I could have just stated that in one sentence instead of this shit mountain no one will ever read. (Gage, I am sure you are the only one who got this far. It was a bit much, right?)
