Blogs: Civility, credibility and digital kudzu

Tim O'Reilly has written a Blogger's Code of Conduct.  Fort Wayne Observed has followed policies that largely dovetail with what Mr. O'Reilly has written as a suggested Code for civility. There are some differences where FWOb is somewhat more stringent. The text of the Blogger's Code of Conduct may be found at the bottom of this post.

FWOb was pointed to the Code of Conduct by a post carried this morning by the Indianapolis Star's weblog - First Thoughts. In a post titled Bloggers Grow Up Mr. Watson makes some pointed comments about anonymous weblogs.

Many of the nation’s 106 million blogs have assumed a place at journalism’s dinner table. In 10 short years, many have gained respect as mediums of news dissemination. They also have taken on a watchdog role, holding newsmakers and news journalists accountable.  [ ... ]

The blogging community is undergoing growing pains, however. Ethical issues abound as blogs strive to maintain credibility. One key area is anonymity.

Many blogs are written by citizen journalists who prefer to remain anonymous. They use pseudonyms. The identity of blog commentators often remains an additional mystery. All we know is a writer’s “handle,” or screen name.

“The right to speak anonymously,” said Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist who is executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, “is well established. Regrettably, however, the right is also widely abused. The Internet is crawling with anonymous communications. Like digital kudzu.”

Scheer insists, and I wholeheartedly agree, that “the promiscuous use of anonymity breeds distrust.”

But there is an effort under way to change that. Tim O’Reilly, an Irish blogger, has proposed a Blogger’s Code of Conduct in an effort to spawn civility on fellow bloggers. The code encourages responsible actions, less anonymity and no abusive comments.
I guess blogging is growing up.

Tim O'Reilly's draft of a Blogger's Code of Conduct:

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.

We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others

We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.

When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.

6. We ignore the trolls.

We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.

Comments

[Jason Blosser]

What's the difference between an anonymous blog and a newspaper or TV journalist who refuses to reveal his or her sources?

[Nancy Nall]

>What's the difference between an anonymous blog and a newspaper or TV journalist who refuses to reveal his or her sources?

A great deal. In the former, you don't know who you're dealing with. In the latter, someone knows, and is saying, in effect, "this person is trustworthy enough that we believe what s/he has to say is important, and has a good reason to stay anonymous." It's a version of "trust me." I realize you, Jason, don't trust any journalists, but there's a long tradition of using anonymous sources in legit journalism, in a wide variety of situations, from whistle-blowing to simply confirming information gleaned from another source.

Generally speaking, anonymous sources are known not only to reporters, but to their editors, as well. The information they offer is generally not used without corroboration from another source. Also, journalists take into consideration everyone's agenda, and weigh that in their decision whether to shield identities -- it matters if the information is coming from a disinterested party in a position to know or, say, Karl Rove.

Google the phrase "use of anonymous sources in journalism" and get ready to spend the rest of the month reading thousands of words on the subject. Here's the San Francisco Chronicle's ombudsman on just one aspect of the issue:

"In 80 percent of the cases, the paper said nothing about the sources' motives for remaining anonymous. Were their jobs in jeopardy? Were they potentially in danger? Or was the paper just making it easier for sources to avoid embarrassment or criticize without risk?

"Half of the time, the paper failed to give readers clues to the sources' expertise or insight. If my paper tells me that an "informed source" says someone is mishandling the city budget, it's asking me to put complete faith in both the paper and the source. If it tells me that a budget analyst who is worried about losing her job but has direct knowledge of the process says the money is being mishandled, I have reason to take the information more seriously.

"These can be delicate matters. In some situations, even a skimpy description can be enough to identify a source to his or her boss. So there needs to be careful discussion between source and reporter.

"The issue here isn't just the danger of journalistic mischief, a la Jayson Blair; it's also the danger of mischief on the part of sources who know they can escape accountability."

[Roger McNeill]

But this is getting at the heart of what's wrong with "the Press", why they are losing credibility (in my case, totally lost it), and why people increasingly turn it off.

"Journalists take into consideration everyone's agenda". While I truly believe that journalists think that they do this, the one agenda that they consistently fail to take into consideration is their OWN agenda.

This is why it's impossible to pick up any issue of any newspaper, or listen to any network news broadcast without finding a story presented as news that is based on a flawed premise or biased view.

It's even more visible in what is NOT reported. If something comes along that does not fit into the Editor's view of the world, no matter how newsworthy, it's simply ignored.

Which means that we consumers of news, if you really want to know what's going on, are forced to take in multiple broadcasts and print sources, split the difference, and draw our own conclusions. There is no single source that can be relied on.

[Michael Kerney]

Roger:

I have yet to meet a 100% objective, unbiased human being with no agenda. By even *being* a journalist, doesn't a person then have an agenda?

As for not relying on a single source for news and thinking for oneself, that just sounds like common sense.