Roger Green’s first blog post of the year involved another question, but his main focus was on handling blogroll links. This was in part an outgrowth of the discussion we all had on one of my earlier posts, but also a post on another blog Roger links to.
All of that got me to thinking about a larger question: Part of the attraction of blogging is that people can do as they please, but should there be standards? Obviously no one’s going to set up an enforceable Code of Practice over things like handling links, but should there be voluntary standards?
The question behind that is even bigger: Are there ethics to blogging? Should there be some sort of standard that bloggers are legally required to meet? Some New Zealand lawmakers think so, and want to include bloggers under the same rules that journalists face—presumably including, among other things, that readers could make complaints to the Press Council.
I have HUGE problems with this idea. First, most bloggers freely state that they’re not journalists—citizen, amateur or whatever. Suggesting that we should be held to the same standards as professional—that is, paid—journalists is absurd.
On the other hand, who protects the public from a blogger with an agenda that leads them to a reckless disregard for the truth? Is it enough to say that the cutting remark is an opinion honestly held, or does the fact that we publish our opinions on the web obligate us to follow the same standards as real journalists?
In my opinion, someone would have to be crazy to think anyone’s personal blog—including this one—presents impartial truth. We don’t deliver straightforward news, nor do most of us pretend to, but in any event, don’t news consumers have some responsibility for determining which is news and which is not?
I think it’s absurd to treat bloggers the same as professional journalists. Existing laws provide remedies in the event of defamation, so I can’t see how any new regulations would be helpful to anyone. And yet, could there be some middle ground in which we bloggers find a way to raise our game without the government intruding where it doesn’t belong?
Clearly I don’t have the answer, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about. I welcome anyone to chime in through the comments (or by email, if you prefer). Maybe I’ll be able to return to this topic one day with a more definitive opinion. For now, I’m just trying to do the best I can—and most of us are, too, in my opinion.
4 comments:
It's even more interesting for me because I ALSO have a blog that appears on the newspaper website. They caveat that I'm not a TU employee, but they've excerpted me at least eight times in the print newspaper itself, including thrice in December. (Their other bloggers aren't carrying their weight?)
I mean, I have a standard for myself, but that's quite different.
Ah, you predicted something I was going to ask you about, since I was thinking of starting a blog myself. (Or restarting as it were, since I attempted lackadaisacally in the past). I say if you're not a professional journalist, caveat lector on the readers' part, although there are probably ethical issues I'm not considering, since I only touched on journalism briefly in my university education.
Something else that occurred to me and am wondering if you had any idea about. I was talking to a friend of mine who's interested in emigrating to NZ, and she and her wife are in possession of one of those limited-edition same-sex marriages granted in California from June 2008 to Nov 2008. Would they experience a change in status upon emigrating since New Zealand only has civil unions?
Cheers, Angela
John Scalzi, I feel, answers this question with his Site Disclaimer and Comment Policy: http://whatever.scalzi.com/about/site-disclaimer-and-comment-policy/
That's as close to a code of ethics as I think you're going to get.
Roger: In my opinion—and that's all it is—I'd think that the newspaper site blog might be held to different standards than your personal blog. The excerpting suggests that the posts are run past an editor, which means they'd impose their standards for the print edition. And I'm sure they'd tell you if you did something naughty.
I think the basic rules—which I know you follow—are pretty much common-sense. That some bloggers disregard that common sense—by design or out of ignorance—has nothing to do with us.
And I think the fact that we discuss this at all means we're trying to observe a certain minimum standard, at least, and I think that's good enough.
Angela: DO start/restart a blog! The more voices the better!
I never studied journalism (just a broad-based Liberal Arts education), so I have no formal training. However, I'm currently reading a book on journalism, though not to be one (pretend or otherwise). Instead, I want to better understand their ethical dilemmas/considerations so that whether I do as they'd do or not is a conscious choice, and not an accident either way.
As for how New Zealand would treat a legal same-sex marriage from overseas, that's a difficult question to answer. Section 35(1)(a) of the Civil Unions Act 2004 is a provision allowing the Governor General to issue an Order in Council to provide regulations to, among other things, determine which same-sex foreign relationships will be recognised as civil unions in New Zealand.
The only one ever issued, it seems, was the first one: "Civil Unions (Recognised Overseas Relationships) Regulations 2005". So, only civil unions (or similar) from Finland, Germany, the UK, New Jersey or Vermont would be recognised as civil unions in New Zealand. All other formal civil unions and, apparently, all same-sex marriages would be recognised only as de facto relationships (which still have legal protections). What IS certain, however, that no legal same-sex marriage, regardless of where or when it was performed, would be recognised as marriage in New Zealand because same-sex couples cannot marry here (YET!).
All that aside, being in a legally-recognised relationship would probably be an advantage for immigration purposes because it shows evidence of a legitimate relationship, but one would need to check with the Immigration Service to know for sure.
I'll expand on this is a subject in an upcoming post (thanks for the idea!). However, since Parliament has risen until next month, don't expect anything soon!
epilonious: That's a very good summary of policies, especially about commenting, and I'll be adding a page saying many of the same things. However, it's not really a code of ethics, though there's probably the germ of one in there. Actually, I think he touches on something else that I didn't: Readers have some obligations, too. Like Angela said above, caveat lector.
Post a Comment