What’s Your Code of Ethics?
04/18/2008, 4 months ago
Blogging is at a turning point. There seem to be three different types of bloggers: those who use it as an online diary, those who view themselves as journalists, and those who view themselves as journalists without all the trappings that traditional media types are bound by.
My personal blog is firmly in the first segment, but I'd probably put myself in the last category to an extent in my "work" writing. I started out as a journalism major, but couldn't ever see myself as anything other than a columnist; I'm too opinionated to subvert that side of myself enough to report news in an impartial voice. However, there are still some pieces of traditional journalism that I know I stick to when it comes to how I conduct myself when writing about news or products.
I first started thinking about personal codes of ethics when looking at the insanely detailed ethics statement Kara Swisher has for BoomTown. All the All Things Digital writers have one, but it was Kara's I noted first, mainly because it discloses so much information. She lists everything, including her partner's job, how that would or would not affect her coverage, all her potential financial interests (which I assume the WSJ requires), and essentially leaves nothing for readers to question.
That level of transparency seems startling, but at the same time, more bloggers might benefit from it. I try to review any personal interactions I've had with a company or person before I write an article that might affect my perception. Even in the seemingly free environment of expressing my opinion, I think there are some things that might be viewed as having an axe to grind.
Two recent tempests in a teapot came to light recently that made me think even more about personal codes of ethics. While there are advantages and disadvantages to writing for a multi-author blog rather than on your own, there are also some drawbacks, which led to this week's situation at Valleywag. Back on 1 April, Jordan Golson wrote a piece venting about his job situation, a hint at the cut in the amount Gawker writers would be paid for pageviews that would be announced later in the month. It's not a piece I would ever have written myself, since I don't think it's wise to bite the proverbial hand that feeds you, but Valleywag editor Owen Thomas left it up.
Two weeks later, Jordan Golson is out of a job. While TechCrunch claims the pink slip was a direct result of the 1 April post, Golson himself admits in the TechCrunch comments that it was more likely a result of his subsequent lack of enthusiasm after the pay cut. Either way, it's an issue for Golson himself. Would a personal code of ethics have prevented him from publicly airing his complaints about pay? What about his admitted "lack of enthusiasm" for his job after the pay cut?
The other situation, coincidentally, involves TechCrunch itself. Drama 2.0 pointed out a potential conflict of interest involving TechCrunch and Data Portability this week. The the post alone demonstrates how some readers react to a lack of transparency in business dealings. If Michael Arrington had written a post that said, "Hey, I've gotten to be friends with Chris Saad and having spent time talking to him I'm going to devote a mess of TechCrunch resources to helping this cause out. They haven't decided how they are going to incorporate yet, but we are going to give half the money to them that's left from our big party to further the cause," wouldn't that have looked a lot better for both parties? If, in that situation, TechCrunch had issued a press release about their involvement in sponsoring the contest and the donation instead of posting it as news on their own site, would the aura of potential conflict of interest been avoided?
Web 2.0 is an incestuous area of tech. Most of the players go to all the same conferences, hang out at all the same blogs, and have ended up in each others' pockets. It probably becomes very difficult to know what should be divulged to keep things transparent. And while I fought the proposed code of ethics floated last year at this time, I wonder if it isn't time that each and every one of us follows the lead of the writers at All Things Digital, disclosing every possible thing that could be construed as a bias. If we want to be taken more seriously as journalists and get the same privileges at conferences and events, then maybe we need to start acting like journalists.
Good article.
I do, however, think it’s important to note that ethics goes beyond disclosing potential conflicts of interest. In my post, I was not only concerned with the possibility of a conflict of interest and the disingenuous remark about not having a “financial stake” in DP but also was concerned that Michael Arrington had miscategorized his financial support of DP as a “donation” to a “charity” when it was not.
His comment on my blog doesn’t really address this and he has not yet responded to my list of questions, one of which is:
“When you posted about the donations being made, did you know that DataPortability was neither a ‘charity’ nor a tax-exempt, non-profit organization? If so, why did you choose to characterize it as such instead of accurately explaining the situation?”
I think the standards bloggers are held to in terms of accuracy are just as important as the standards bloggers are held to in terms of disclosure. After all, if bloggers (especially those who are prominent) don’t feel the need to report things accurately, how can the blogosphere ever expect to be looked upon as a legitimate and trustworthy news source?
As such, any blogger truly interested in being ethical should obligate himself or herself to:
1. Doing a reasonable amount of homework to ensure that he or she is reporting something accurately.
2. Reporting accurately.
3. Issuing corrections or clarifications when something was reported inaccurately or in a fashion that was potentially misleading or unnecessarily ambiguous.
It’s funny because not long ago I commented that the Valleywag blogger in question was lucky that he worked for a company that allowed revolt and criticism within its ranks. Turns out I was wrong after all.
@Drama Thanks, and I agree. Unfortunately, that’s not how most people see blogging.
@Simon Even if that is the real reason under the party line, rule number one is that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, no matter how “flexible” they seem.