I thought we had a very valuable discussion this morning on the question, when is blogging journalism? Or, what distinguishes journalism from everything else we see in or on blogs. Many thanks to Amanda.
As a followup, as if to help us debate this issue, CNN just launched a new site dedicated to user-generated content that is unmoderated and unfiltered. The question for us: Is it, therefore, unworthy? The new iReport is conceptually a lot like YouTube. You can read much, much more about it in a column by Jonathan Dube of Cyberjournalist.net, who Amanda referenced this morning in the context of ethics.
From Singer’s and Friend’s book, these questions (p. 118) as followups to our discussion, and specific to iReport.com:
- Should news organizations sponsor places online for users to offer their own blogs or other forms of information? CNN is saying, “Absolutely!”
- If so, what if any responsibility does the news organization have to ensure the information is accurate and fair? CNN is saying here, “Not a lot.” This disclaimer from the beta iReport Web site: “CNN does not vet or verify their authenticity or accuracy before they post. The ones with the “On CNN” stamp have been vetted and used in CNN news coverage.”
- How should it deal with material that may be offensive, threatening or potentially libelous? On this last question, I’m reminded of Caitie’s excellent point regarding the hypocrisy of opening up a forum, then editing or even censoring, and the effects of this hypocrisy on credibility and reader trust.
I would also like us to expand on a key question raised this morning, about how much postmodernism has to do with the old media resistance to blogging.
Singer and Friend: “Bloggers see truth as emerging from a shared, collective knowledge — from an electronically enabled marketplace of ideas” (p. 121). They do not see truth as resting on the decisions of a bunch of reporters and editors, nor as something to do with objectivity, at least according to Singer and Friend. (I’m reluctant to use “they” when referring to bloggers because “bloggers” is a term that includes such a dizzying diversity of people writing for all sorts of reasons.)
What do you think? How much, using Ashton’s anecdote, of old school journalists’ resistance to the “conversation” (to borrow Katie’s term) rather than the traditional news lecture has to do with generational differences and familiarity with online media?
Finally, I would like at least some of us to flesh out the ethical imperative to “minimize harm.” What does this mean? What does it look like? What does it not look like? (For example, it does NOT mean not hurting someone’s feelings. The truth is often VERY offensive, at least to some. I think we should start by understanding that this harm usually has much to do with the public interest, not any one person.)
(Please read also the post just below this one. Comment if you like, but please at least read it; I posted it over our Spring Break. Cheers!)
March 30, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
I think it is fine for a news organization like CNN to offer a place for bloggers to post information. Because this is the way that journalism is heading it is very appropriate to have web pages like this however if you are going to have a blog spot like this it seems it would be best to not edit at all. For legal purposes. That way the news organization would not be responsible for invalid facts or any other harmful material.
I really agree with Catie. If a news organization does open a blog spot it should not be edited at all. Because it defeats the purpose of a “all inclusive” opinions section or blog spot. I think Blogs lean towards a lot of opinion and all people have not had schooling for journalistic unbiased writing.
According to the old school journalist that Ashton mentioned. Like we said in class we have to move along with the technology. Everyone has to move with the times … in photography no one really uses film anymore it’s archaic yet at one time very cutting edge. And so with journalism I feel like we need to give the readers what they want in a sense and serve the readers too.
This seems like a hard thing to do but I feel like minimizing harm is kinda straddling a fine line. Kinda like Berry College wants to be a Christian school so as a compromise they are “Christian in spirit” whatever the hell that means. And so when artists like Ben Folds want to sing B*****s Ain’t S**t the administration asks him not to because we are kinda Christian but really we’re not. Until they decide they are then Ben Folds has no reason not to sing that at our Liberal Arts institution. With minimizing harm I can think of an image of a family grieving over their dead 7 year old son who drowned in a river. it was run in a news paper. This could be considered an invasion of that family’s privacy but that was not the only child that drowned that Summer that was the 7th death. SO it was appropriate to draw attention to the situation. Even though it probably hurt the family a lot. It still helped the greater public and did more good than harm. So I agree that although things can be harmful they can still be helpful.
March 31, 2008 at 7:44 am |
FROM Katie Landry:
I really liked what Jonathan Dube described in his article about the New Hampshire public radio’s citizen journalism website. The article didn’t specifically mention how posts were edited, but rather stressed the importance of giving citizens clear instructions and guidance up front, then following up with continued feedback.
I think the NHPR system for citizen journalism has succeeded because it does offer proactive editorial guidance rather than reactive editorial censoring and altering. The registered users (not that no anonymous posts are allowed) received weekly e-mails to further help them in generating content.
As far as for their motivations for having this system, NHPR cited three main reasons that I think should be goals of any participatory journalism project. First, it helped the overall news reporting as serving as a reporting source for further investigation. Secondly, it was viewed as an investment in human capital (sounds a lot like our digital societies class). Lastly, NHPR felt that it gave the citizens a fuller understanding of the democratic process. I think this last goal is a key part in any project for those of us who believe that journalism is key to any democracy.
I feel like this article gave many specific guidelines and goals that if adapted to other participatory journalism projects could help give them better results and more credibility. Perhaps the CNN project should take notes.
March 31, 2008 at 8:20 am |
There is something that I feel like we have talked about either in class or else read in OJE and haven’t been able to find to reference. The statement was- The more editing that goes into blog postings that a journalistic site hosts, the more they are held responsible for the things that are left posted on the blog. If this is indeed true, and something that we have talked about, then it just seems like such a strange dilemma of allowing the “trash posts” to stay up and allow the full range of free speech, or edit those things out, taking on a larger role of responsibility and even liability to root some problem posts out. (for example, the racists blog comments we have discusses earlier in class).
I feel like iReport seems to have found a novel way to approach this strange dilemma of trash posts and free speech at its best. People can post whatever they want, allowing it to be a forum of free speech. Certain pictures/stories have undergone some sort of scrutiny and received an “On CNN” mark. People can scroll through and get stuff they might feel they can trust a little more than just straight off the internet because it has this trusted brand mark of verification. In the very same website, they can see more than just what lies in the scope of what CNN has time to fact check and approve.
As we were talking in class the other day about the relationship of people and their trust for the media improving through the use of blogs, I think this provides a beautifully symbiotic relationship. The media didn’t make these stories, they just do the fact checking. So there’s still this protective journalistic gate for those that want it, but the only agenda setting the media the site can do is which videos/stories/pictures they take the time to check and give their mark. So it seems to offer a wide range of media choices for the user in terms of how big they want their “gate” to be. This is neat to me to see the journalistic gate coming in adjustable sizes from one web site.
The concept of this web site is one that works for both Modern and Post-Modern thinkers, because Modernists can have their “big t” Truth found with the “On CNN” seal. Post-Modernists can still see their many truths in the diversity of posts which come not from CNN but are user generated.
March 31, 2008 at 9:03 am |
I think I agree with CNN’s endorsement of journalist blogs. As a way
to present more information and also as a way to have a discussion
with an audience, they can be positive.
However, I don’t think I agree with CNN’s decision to post most of
their blog’s content without verification or authentication. What,
then, is the point of a professional journalist’s blog if it is not
accurate or verified? I don’t think having a blog is a ‘get out of
jail free’ card when it comes to fact checking. More should be
expected of a blog that is affiliated with or linked from a news
organization.
The less comment controlling and editing done by the news
organization, the better. Caitie made a really good point that
editing a forum is very hypocritical, and it really is. You can’t
truly have a discussion that is representative of everyone without
someone making an offensive or unpopular point. Also, it would be
horribly damaging to the organization’s credibility if they began
editing and choosing which comments got to stay.
When it comes to old school journalists resistance to bloggers… I
see their points. Just like in any business, there are people doing a
good job and people taking short cuts and fabricating stories. Some
journalists probably do need watchdogs. But, I think it can get out of
hand. Professional journalists have real deadline and encounter
problems when trying to seek out interviews, information, etc. Maybe
the real journalists couldn’t get their hands on some information they
wanted before their deadline. And maybe a blogger called the
journalist out on not having certain information because they were
“biased” or whatever. It reminds me of the chapter in “Sex, Drugs and
Cocoa Puffs” where Chuck Klosterman talks about missing an important
phone call because he got up to get a Dr Pepper. And subsequently
having to run a story without an important interview. Things like that
happen, and journalists are under deadline. They’re never going to get
ALL of the information they could possibly get. It shouldn’t be a
blogger’s job to point out all the flaws of good journalists’ work.
March 31, 2008 at 9:03 am |
The upside for news sources such as CNN providing a place online for users to offer their own blogs or content is that they expand their contributing base by the truck load. The best part for CNN is that they don’t have to pay any of these reporters, relying on the power of crowd sourcing.
This gives CNN the ability to cover thousands of events (some from a perspective they couldn’t get otherwise) all across the country and/or world, so of course they would be supportive of the effort. The first example that comes to mind is the Virginia Tech tragedies a few months back where “iReporters” were able to submit video and photos from the cellular phones giving CNN the first look into the situation.
The disclaimer on the site allows CNN to save face from any content that might be inaccurate, and allows them to pick and choose which pieces are worth investigating further to later be used in their own coverage. As for how they deal with material that may be offensive, a brief list of what is “not welcome” to the site is available under the community guidelines section of the site at http://www.ireport.com/guidelines.jspa . With this, CNN relies on users to flag material in breach of the guidelines, after which moderators remove it from the site.
As for old school journalists’ resistance to enter the blogosphere, I think a lot of that has to do with generational differences and familiarity with online media. There are a handful of changes that journalists have had to undergo because of technology and the web in the past decade.
Changes are even apparent in our own communication department where the curriculum has been revised to ideal of convergence. It’s only natural that veterans in the business would be wary to forget what they know and are accustomed to, to learn something new.
Lastly, I agree with Sarah in that the scale of minimizing harm while maximizing truth is a very tricky one to really do, and do well. As with many topics, telling all of the facts in the pursuit of maximizing truth often offends some. The guess the question that really has to be asked is how many people will benefit from knowing the truth, as harsh as it may be, and does it outweigh the number that will not?
March 31, 2008 at 9:04 am |
I’ve noticed many news articles I read on-line have a place for comments. Most of the time I just see innocent opinions about the content of the article, not much about the writer, their writing style or the larger issues at hand. Other times you can read raging debates going back and forth on the comments boards between ilovefrogs and 23Skidu. Of course what CNN has done has taken the comment board a step farther. I think it’s an interesting idea and will help to connect people; especially the articles on autism that were posted as of 5:30 Sunday. I can really see the blog helping to form some kind of supportive community. I also like that CNN suggests ways to write and take pictures better as well as offers “assignments.” On the other hand, when will news stories become advertisements or promotions for Bob’s Crab Cove in beautiful Destin?
I think CNN has done the only thing they can do with a blog like this: Wash their hands of any responsibilities for the posts. They make it very clear that anything and everything can be posted by anyone. I think it’s the only and best way to protect themselves. Also, because they have this disclaimer, there’s really no need to edit or monitor since visitors to the site have been warned as to what they’re getting into.
I really like the modernism vs. po-mo way of explaining the aversion to blogs. Generational differences, unfamiliarity with the media also makes sense. Even I’m amazed at how fast technology is changing and how much more involved we can be with people from across the globe, reporters, big media, politicians, etc. Not everyone, myself included, can keep up.
I agree with Sarah about the greatest good for the greatest people. However, when I think of minimizing harm I usually think of cyberbullying. Yes, I know that’s really just one person’s feelings hurt, but when hurt feelings lead to suicide I think some serious harm has been done. However, we can’t just remove comments and websites because they hurt our feelings, now can we? I don’t know what should be done.
March 31, 2008 at 9:05 am |
Several weeks ago, we considered the role of broadcast in the new realm of online journalism, and if it could keep up. I think what CNN is doing is a perfect example of how broadcast journalism can incorporate themselves into the new medium.
But whether the news blog is started by a newspaper, tv news station, news magazine, etc., it’s my personal opinion that they should have very little to no responsibility for the information that is posted there. I believe all that should be required is a very BOLD, top-of-the-page disclaimer that the news is from outside sources, and not affiliated with the company/paper/news show. This should be enough to protect them, and enable them to maintain the trust of news consumers and posters, remaining loyal to their promise of an open, unedited forum. If, however, the news organization decides to begin editing posts, etc., they give up their legal protection and should be held responsible for all posts on the site, since by editing they are sending the message that they are “checking” for accuracy.
Concerning the question “Should news organizations sponsor places online for users to offer their own blogs or other forms of information?”, I would agree with CNN and say most definitely. Their goal is to serve the public, and i find it to be a great public service to enable such an open forum to exist. Yes, not all of the information would be accurate or constructive, but the real, true news, as well as those stories that could be classified as “feature”, would increase in number, and over time, I would argue quality. When looking on CNN’s new site, there were several interesting posts that add depth to otherwise 5- minute- long broadcast stories, i.e a video of a couple who participated in the 1 hour power outage. A quote from the article by Dube states perfectly why these public forums are serving the people:
It gives “a fuller sense of what it means to participate in the democratic process. By writing for themselves and by reading what their neighbors had written, they could become more conscious of the primary and how it played itself out within their frame of reference”. Granted this quote was in reference to only one small example of the NH primary coverage, but it should be applied to the phenomenon as a whole: participation, voice, choice, and open forums will always benefit democracy and the people of it more than it could harm it.
March 31, 2008 at 9:06 am |
I personally do not believe blogs are currently a reliable news sources. CNN seems to agree with me on this with their disclaimer. Blogs though can be a reliable tool though to get leads on news stories and it seems that more and more news publications are realizing this. Which leads me to how ethical and accurate blogs should be. My beliefs that blogs are not a reliable news source allows blogs to be both non-ethical and/or not accurate. The only way they could become ethical and accurate is if they took up some form of code like the SPJ Code of Ethics. This would not allow the crowd sourcing ideals of what characterizes blogs to exist. So with blogs not being ethical and accurate I totally understand why the people who have been brought up in the “old” way of distributing news do not trust blogs.
Finally Kohut,
Your last paragraph sums up everything that I have been trying to grasp in words recently involving this whole censorship deal. So…Thanks
March 31, 2008 at 9:06 am |
As the new media wave washes over journalism as-we-know-it, displacing old unspoken rules of traditional journalism, for many, the horizon looks a little bleak. As mentioned in class discussion rolling with the punches is not always an easy task, especially for older journalists. Having an audience that was once mute, yell back at you, comment, add, take-away, etc… is obnoxious and rude to some. Yet, progress is persistent in its march forward and for this reason I think it is best for journalism as-we-know-it to embrace what new media has to offer. Taking small steps now is the only way journalism can go on surviving. Ignoring change would surely bring about journalism’s extinction.
CNN, along with other news sources are experimenting. iReport is one example of how they are working to incorporate new media. I believe this is the best course for news outlets to make. While iReport encourages a strong interaction between audience and creator, I think they are opening up potential for offensive, threatening and potentially libelous material. Since the premise of CNN’s iReport is to create a valid open forum, it would be difficult to deal with some of this material. Perhaps the best way to deal with it, without offending the audience you are trying to include, would be to provide some set of clear guidelines (or a disclaimer). Ex: this website is for news, and our definition of news is … we are able to delete material that does not fit these criteria on some level. This might encourage the audience to post material that is relevant.
I thought this quote from John Dube’s column was very interesting. “Lastly, I believe that a project like PPO [social network site about the election in NH] is good for democracy. It offers citizens a pathway to be who they are, contribute to the public understanding and get a better understanding of others in their communities. It’s hard to argue against doing that.”
In response to Sarah K. – I think her viewpoint on minimizing harm is very insightful, especially in regards to the picture of the dead boy. Over spring break while covering the tornado damages in Silver Creek, my own personal views on minimizing harm were tested. Being in close quarters with a grieving family the day following the storm was difficult to say the least. It was my job to film the damage, but did the general public really need to see the emotional damage the tornado had caused to the family who lost someone? In the end, I was a bit “cowardly” perhaps (not really sure if that is the right word…), but felt it was not my place to interview any of the family members of the man who was killed. I interviewed others affected by the damage but decided the film of the damaged house where the man was killed would have to speak for itself. Interviewing those who were already hurting would have caused more harm to them than good to the general public.
March 31, 2008 at 9:07 am |
First of all, I do agree that it is good for news organizations to have spaces available for bloggers to write their own comments and news information. However, I strongly believe that if this kind of thing is allowed, there almost has to be someone to check over the information to make sure it is accurate. One cannot happen without the other. People do have the right to share their constructive opinions and to share information, but they shouldn’t have that right at the expense of false information or offensive words being posted on those blogs. Therefore, I do not agree with CNN at all when they say that having a person to check information is not that important.
Because of this, I do agree with Caitie when I say that if any news organization leaves an option for people to blog their opinions and information, they should either be comfortable with the idea that some posts may be inaccurate or offensive, or they should not have a place for posts at all. I only say this because I do agree that it is slightly hypocritical to give people the freedom to post things when you know that anyone has the ability to post something inaccurate or offensive. As much as I agree with the freedom of speech, there are some areas (like the news) when civic journalism becomes the most important part of the news, and news has to be accurate.
I also have a hard time believing in the Singer and Friend quote about bloggers and truth. I do not think that bloggers, even though they have their shared community where information is constantly swimming around the web, will ever have as much expertise about a topic unless they put forth the work and research that reporters and writers do for the news. The type of truth and accuracy that the news room strives for will most likely always be more accurate than what bloggers share with each other. Even though bloggers may share the opinions of the majority of the population, it doesn’t mean that what they discuss is accurate.
Finally, when I think of “minimizing harm,” I don’t think so much about hate speech or words of threat (which should never cross the minds of journalists), but rather it’s about the protection of an individual (such as a victim of sexual assault) or avoiding offending a larger group. Printing the name of a victim of sexual assault is definitely not as bad as “hate speech” but it is definitely crossing the line of privacy and it takes away the protection of the victim. Similarly, with avoiding offensive language, the journalist should think about the well being of a group of people (not necessary the population as a whole). A journalist can never please the entire reading audience, but he can realize the different groups within the reader population, so as to not offend (whether by mistake or on purpose) any group of people. Harm is also withholding vital information from an audience because, if a reader isn’t informed about something that is vital to their everyday life, then that may cause harm to them and their community (again, the group). This is what “harm” would be to me. Not so drastic as hate speech, but just enough to make readers feel uncomfortable or uninformed.
March 31, 2008 at 9:08 am |
I think it is very important that news organizations like CNN are providing blogging space for anyone interested in taking it. This provides the audience with a chance to truly interact with the media, show the organization what is important to them in the news, give journalists a jumping-off point for stories, and to react (both constructively and destructively) to what they have read or seen somewhere. This last point brings up the topic of censorship. In my mind, these spaces provided by news organizations should not be edited. For one thing, editing the posts is hypocritical; if an organization is going to provide that space they need to take what comes and not fool around with it or they’ll lose their readers’s and contributors’s trust. Also, as Sarah said, if they don’t edit or vet the material posted, they cannot be held liable for anything negative or whatnot that is posted.
As for minimizing harm, I think it is important, but news value and the potential good that a story can do for the public at large should outweigh concern for an individual or group that may be harmed in a story.
March 31, 2008 at 9:08 am |
I am still intrigued by the phrase “minimizing harm” and what exactly that means to a journalist. Everyone’s opinion of what is or isn’t harmful is going to be different. I think the whole concept of maximizing truth while minimizing harm goes right along with our discussion on ethics.
When is it appropriate to “harm” while presenting the “truth” and when does “minimizing harm” trump informing the public? As applied to bloggers, this debate becomes a personal choice. I would think that bloggers would be less concerned with causing “harm” because there is no form of punishment to really be executed on them besides perhaps being shut down.
A journalist for traditional news media, however, has his job at stake and the reputation of the news company. Outside of a blog server for journalists who agree to some sort of terms regarding “maximizing truth and minimizing harm”, making sure that bloggers follow this code is impossible.
March 31, 2008 at 9:09 am |
I think it is good that CNN is offering a place for bloggers to post. If they put up a disclaimer I think they are covering their butts and are in good shape. They should definitely not edit or delete any posting if they want to remain credible in the eyes of their readers. If CNN is not putting the time into writing and editing these posts they should not be required to answer for them. I think that if it is made clear that it is an open forum, the extent of their responsibility is to put up a disclaimer (which CNN has done).
I also agree that as technology is increasing journalism has to move with it. We’re not always going to like the change, and it is not always going to be beneficial. Losing one-way communication may be hard for some people, but I think the conversation aspect can really help bring in more readers. I think when people feel like they can actually have a say in something they are more willing to be open to what others have to say. And several voices on one issue can really open doors and interest in areas that only a couple people could think of. There will always be differing opinions but a little debate never hurt anyone. It is important to embrace the changes, instead of hesitating.
April 2, 2008 at 8:03 am |
I agree that news organizations should offer a place for readers to post ideas and comments (and possibly even what they consider news); no, posts should not be edited. I agree with Catie that posts shouldn’t be edited since it undermines the credibility of the news organization, If a reader/subscriber finds out that content was edited on the internet, they would wonder what was happening in the newsroom right before print. One potential problem with the model of an open forum (and it was mentioned in the book): what about journalists working for a news organization that offers a place for readers to post? Should they be allowed to post on that particular forum? And if so, does the news organization have the right to edit those posts?
For potentially harmful or libelous posts, a disclaimer (something along the lines of “X news organization does not support/endorse ideas a,b or c) would help with the problem.
To me, minimizing harm is doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Sarah’s example was good; although the family may have been upset about publishing the story, the general public needed to be informed, especially since this was not the first drowning and it warned the public about a dangerous situation/trend. Anytime a story involves politics, money or health, the story should be published so that readers are knowledgeable and can make an informed decision.
April 2, 2008 at 8:07 am |
I agree with Sarah and that if a organization wants to offer a place for people to blog then they should but I think that this is something that should be “watched.” I think that the information put on these blogs though should be good information and should deal with the topic of the blog.
On the second question about the editing of quotes I agree also that organizations should not edit quotes unless it takes away from the topic again. I have looked at some blogs and sometimes there are random comments that have nothing to do with the topic and a lot of times there are things that are hateful and therefore i think things like that should be taken off. I do think that a organization should be careful about this though because I do think that be editing that you lose some of the readers trust.
I agree that we do have to move along with online media because are day and age is moving quickly and we have to keep up with it. People want news fast so we need to give them it but offering more and more online media.
This last question about minimizing harm is a hard one to answer and sometimes maybe not answered right. I like the story that Sarah gave about the Ben Folds. I think that Berry was trying to minimize harm by not having him play that song but if berry really wanted to minimize harm that would not have had someone like that come to berry. Berry knew what kind of songs Fold’s played and therefore i dont think they have the right to tell him what he can and cannot play. I also think it goes along with people that are in the public and private eye. People that are public eye are knowing that they are going to be watched more and everything and therefore they know that things are going to be written wrong about them. Private people however should have a lot more respect when it comes to what is printed. I think a good case would be should names of rape victims be printed or not? I mean you could put there name but it is something that you should not do because this person should have private matters kept in the dark.