|
|
||||
|
|
In a post criticizing TechCrunch for stories based on "off the record" sources, Nelson Minor writes (emphasis added): Blogs are great for discussing current events, particularly shades and nuance from multiple angles. And I like juicy rumour sites. But real journalism has a strong code of ethics, a responsibility to source reports, and careful editorial review. TechCrunch isn't even trying to do that. Did TechCrunch misinterpret "off the record"? JD Lasica of the Social Media blog thinks so, and provides definitions. Does the distinction between "off the record" and "on background" matter to bloggers? I'm not convinced. Meanwhile, I want to address the larger issue. This "real journalism" is at best an ideal that journalists strive for. But in practice it's just a myth, punctured daily in the political blogosphere. As noted, Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine is one of the best sources on blogs and journalism. For example: journalists and their conventioneering organizations like to make many lists of rules about ethics, which make some lose sight of the more fundamental notion that ethics are really a matter of individual conscience and trust: You can follow every rule in the book but still slant a story or a paper's coverage by the news you select and how you write it; you can still squander your trust. there's nothing journalists like better, it sometimes seems, than dissecting their professional ethics. ... But what they can lose sight of the fact that it's quite simple, really: Do people trust you to tell the truth? The answer: only 9% of Americans say they have a great deal of trust and confidence in the mass media to report the news "fully, accurately, and fairly," while another 38% say they have a "fair amount" of trust in the media to do this. Original source: a Gallup Poll whose URL doesn't work. These 2007 results show a drop compared to Gallup's 2003 poll, and a significant drop since the 1970s. (Another must-read from Jarvis: Taking the pledge.)
Add Comment
|
|
||