CorrenteThis is not a caption.
|
|
And please: No more jokes about blogger ethics. After this primary, anybody who thinks we don't need them shouldn't call themselves a blogger.
... that work the wheels that keep the Mighty Corrente servers turning. Help us cover monthly hamster kibble anxiety:
...or provide temporary relief:
Thank you!
Note: If you have login or page update issues, clear your cache and cookies, and restart your browser. If you have a feature request, or a bug to report, please see here. Feature requests or bug reports in comments are increasingly less likely to be responded to.
Front page
Comments
anybody who thinks we don't need them
shouldn't call themselves a civilized human being.
This list works well enough for me, much better than that dusty old desert tribe stone tabulation. Graven images should definitely be OK as well as multiple gods or none at all, and tolerance for a little adultery ought to be recognized for what it is, a reflection of normalcy and the sole great French contribution to modern ethics.
One important reason for an ethics code
is that it defines violations.
Properly written, an ehtics code provides an objective standard to evaluate performance.
Those who fail to adhere to a popularly accepted code can justifiably termed "Unethical" even if they don't agree with it.
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
The reason...
...why people mocked Blogger Ethics Codes is that they were often written by
(a) sore losers
(b) Republican shills
(c) jealous journalists
(d) bloggers who were jealous *of* journalists
(e) and/or various others who had vested interests
and made the assumption that bloggers needed more reigning in than the mainstream media.
And there's no reason to think that writing down a blogger ethics code won't run afoul of the same problems these efforts have always run afoul.
Those are strong charges, can you back them up?
Please don't just paste a bunch of links
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
OK, you don't want a bunch of links
My cynicism comes from personal experience with the Robert Cox's Media Bloggers Association, which as far as I can tell, is the result of a jealous, petty right-wing self-promoter who somehow had enough talent and connections to get himself some credibility.
My run-in started here.
Soon after writing this, I got a very angry email from Robert Cox, which resulted in a lengthy email flamewar that demonstrated to me that Cox was not intellectually honest and that he was merely a jealous self-promoter with too many contacts. A common phenomenon. He had gotten himself some kind of role at the Libby
trial, both FDL and myself (who covered a couple of days of it liveblogging from the courthouse) promptly ignored.
Unfortunately, his organization's web site is frequently down. But it has a statement of principles...
This is an example of the sorts of things that make me very suspicious of attempts to regulate blogging, even on a moral and peer-pressure plane like ethics codes. It regurgitates all the same issues, but it now has a nice shiney decal.
Well, look at the independent sites
with the code. There's a whole family of them. Do they adhere, or not?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
If they adhere...
...it's because they were predisposed to adhere, not that a statement of high-fallutin' principles made them adhere.
For instance, most successful academics don't plagiarize or fake results not solely due to fear of university judiciary, or even opprobrium.
Feh
And having the code where is can be pointed to, so people can express their concerms, isn't helpful in preventing violations? Any self-regulating community, I would wager, has a similar system (explicit or implicit). The childish "predisposed" argument assumes that individuals are completely autonomous. In a network, they are not.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
If you will forgive me, another link
To something more recent: Making Light. Just so you know that Media Bloggers is still a relevant topic, and this dude is still kicking around.
So...forgive me for skepticism of most attempts to make blogging more credible from the outside. It's all about ideology, not about honesty.
Not sure I follow your logic here
1. AP meets with sham blogger group.
2. Blogging cannot be made credible [qualified as below]
I don't know what "from the outside" might mean. Presumably, if the code originated from bloggers, and was adhered to by bloggers, it would not be "outside"?
As for "it's all about ideology, not about honesty." What on earth could that mean?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Ethics codes accomplish what?
Busy (moving) so I'll try to make this
onetwothree sentences, and if I have time tomorrow I'll get to a longer answer because it has to do with my skepticism about the PB 2.0 project:The point is that any idiot can come up with codes and can play inside baseball with rules, but what's important is how your audience reacts and what you actually accomplish from doing this. The problem is not lack of ethics and codes of conduct, it's that the conduct is entirely shaped by the ideology it serves. The failure of PB 1.0 is, to reiterate, not a failure at all, but merely the well-known result of the ideological position taken by its main protagonists and will not be resolved by quests for rules of journalistic integrity.
I like the ethics code in the post
Makes me feel slightly hopeful.
Would adopting that plus whatever else is needed for the internet be good for pb 2.0?