That question, here posed tongue-in-cheek, has a faintly salacious air to it, which is not entirely coincidental. There are some distinctly salacious (not to mention nasty, mean, insulting, vicious, untrue, exaggerated, etc.) comments circulated these days in this still-new forum of electronic communication called “blogging.” If you want to read comments guaranteed to assault your sense of civilized discourse, just go online to read one of the multitude of blogs between the fans of any two college football rivals of your choice. The levels of vitriol (exceedingly high) and intelligence (demonstrably low) will astound people accustomed to getting their information from traditional print or electronic media. I am, admittedly, a product of traditional journalism education (Kansas State University, thank you). I subscribe to the general “codes of conduct” drilled into generations of newspapers and TV/radio reporters: Accuracy, objectivity, fairness, accountability, and of course the “who-what-when-where and why” questions that still need to be answered for today’s news consumers. Perhaps because of this traditional training, I’m fascinated by this developing form of electronic communication called “blogging.” This new medium, as raw and primitive as a frontier cow town on a Saturday night, offers exciting new opportunities for exchanging information – but it also has sobering potential for misuse and abuse. More about that in a minute, but first … Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, says “blog,” coined as a joke by one Peter Merholz in 1999, is a shortened form of “weblog.” As a medium of news dissemination, Wikipedia says, the art (it certainly isn’t a science) of blogging took a giant leap in 2002 when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott suggested the U.S. would have been better off if Senator Strom Thurmond had been elected president. The remark went largely unreported in traditional media until bloggers spread the story across the Internet, helping create a political crisis that eventually led Lott to resign as majority leader. Since then, blogging has expanded to cover war, politics, entertainment, sports, and just about any other event or issue that makes somebody’s blood boil. Most of us, almost daily, read some kind of “blog.” The Idaho Business Review has a business-oriented blog … The Idaho Statesman’s editorial editor Kevin Richert has an excellent blog focused on politics and legislative issues … reporter Betsy Russell of the Spokane Spokesman-Review maintains “Betsy’s Blog,” which is essential daily reading for anyone trying to make sense out of an Idaho legislative session. But while communications amateurs are blogging away like crazy to (and about) their friends, professional communicators are struggling to accommodate their journalism training with the unfettered operation of blogs. Many bloggers view their medium as an arena in which anything goes – no rules, restrictions, or responsibilities. In such a no-holds-barred operation, it’s inevitable that you’ll also get some errors, misinformation, insults, threats, and outright lies. The basic challenge of “free speech” is that it must be, to the maximum extent possible, uncontrolled in order to be “free” – so many mainstream media folks are still struggling with the proper management of blogs (even their own). For example, there certainly is a fundamental dichotomy between a newspaper requiring that letters-to-the-editor writers attach their name, address and phone number – yet allowing readers to rant anonymously on its blogs. “Editors are in a semi-panic mode about blogging,” New York Times reporter Tim Egan told a Boise City Club audience April 9. A year earlier, another Times reporter wrote a story headlined, “A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs.” Concerns about blogging have led to proposals for some rules or standards. That’s anathema to most bloggers, but could provide some insulation against the most obvious abuses – like the anonymous death threats last year delivered online to Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author in Colorado, after she argued in favor of improving Web conduct. Electronic media commentator Tim O’Reilly has proposed a Blogger’s Code of Conduct, including eliminating anonymous comments, and not saying anything online that you wouldn’t say in person. A blog operator named Stewart Brand even coined the acronym “YOYOW” – “you own your own words,” assigning responsibility for online comments. The best protection for free speech is the responsible exercise of that right. I’ll defend your right to speak your piece as long as it’s not libelous or slanderous, and you make a reasonable effort to be factual and accurate – and if you have the guts to sign your name to your comments. A stodgy proposal, perhaps, to those who have grown up without blogging rules, restrictions, or responsibility. I may be the target of online retribution from fervent bloggers. (Would such electronic criticism be called a “blog-flog?”) But requiring bloggers to work under their own names would both improve online conduct and greatly enhance the credibility and acceptance of the often valuable information they’re providing. Identify yourself, don’t libel or slander. … Those standards have served us well for many decades, and will work equally well with modern modes of communication.
Steve Ahrens is the retired president of the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry and a former political editor of The Idaho Statesman.
4 Comments
Interesting analysis. I don't disagree about the lack of decorum that permeates certain sites. But I don't think eliminating anonymity will necessarily solve them. I also think there is an inherent sense of self censorship that goes about when people write under their real names, withholding what they really feel about a subject, because they fear that someone they know will take offense, or just think less of the author. That inhibits free speech.
This is such a new medium I think one should wait before asserting new rules of etiquette. Many of us who blog anon have legitimate reasons for doing so. My voice would be stifled if I didn't. But I take my blog cred very seriously and therefore police myself assiduously in that regard. Those who don't quickly earn an on-line rep as a troll. That seems to be sufficient incentive for most. The rest are either worthy of being ignored or can be a satisfying meal.
Kevin Richert picked up on this and his site lends itself to the kind of abuse you indicate. Its got so many trolls I don't go there. But its his site, he needs to learn how to control the decorum on his site and take a few lessons from DFO up north at the Spokesman. Rules should emanate from the proprietor of the blog, just like the newspaper. Anything more is unworkable.
Comment By Sisyphus Tuesday, April 29, 2008 @ 1:13 PM
One should not butt into other forums to back up their own rogue correspondents either.
Comment By Argyle Cotillion Tuesday, April 29, 2008 @ 5:44 PM
As editor of NewWest.Net/Boise, I agree with your concern about nastiness - I often want to say, "What is your mother's phone number? Because I need to call and inform her you need a brush-up on basic manners."
But I can't agree about anonymity. Recently some Idaho bloggers convinced me that anonymity is crucial to some people for internet discussions. People who work for governments (or their partners do) must have it. People who are whistleblowers must have it - sometimes the internet is the only forum they have for calling attention to something without getting fired. Think of the soldier who has seen corruption, abuse of power, etc. They must have it. What about the person with a terrible disease they must keep secret (for a multitude of reasons I can think of) who wants help from online forums about his/her condition? - they need it. I could go on.
I've been researching possible guidelines, andI think yours, below, are among the best I've seen. I especially like numbers 3 and 5. But I do think saying "heck" and "dang" are okay, if that's what you mean by "euphemisms for profanity."
Thanks for a thoughtful article.
Comment By Jill Kuraitis Wednesday, April 30, 2008 @ 10:38 AM
Hi, Steve:
Yeah, I use my real name (Just the first name; those who know me will recognize me; those who don't wouldn't even if I used my full name, nicknames, etc.)
Anyway, to me, the difference between newspaper writing and blogging is like the difference between driving on public streets, roads and highways, and driving bumper cars at the carnival -- i.e., in the one case, you must follow lots of laws, rules, etc., being cautions and always aware of likely consequences of deviating from the norm; in the other, you say what you wanna say, run into any cars that get in your way, just do whatever seems fun.
Sure, bloggers can get nasty; so can bumper-car drivers. But neither is likely to actually harm me.
And, as you probably recall from your days working with me, I could be pretty nasty in e-mails to my bosses, too, cuz the rules only applied to stuff that was to be printed in the paper, not to the bumper-cars of e-mails (and now blogs).
So, turn the bloggers loose, don your thickest skin and let everybody have their fun.
-- gp
Comment By Gordon Wednesday, April 30, 2008 @ 6:12 PM
CONTACT US at 208.336.3768
WANT THREE FREE ISSUES?
