There are some people who are very confused about the role of bloggers versus journalists. Some think that bloggers like me are supposed to follow some ethic of journalism. That's wrong and its confining. Plus, it's just plain boring!
I'm a blogger, a video blogger, not a journalist. Moreover, I don't want to be a journalist. I have the greatest respect for journalists, but that's not where I live. I blog. Freely and often, I blog. I use videos more than others and that makes me a vlogger. I'm not subordinate to a journalist; I'm media. I have a point of view and I share it. I'm not a journalist.
I have over 2,000 posted videos and 10,000 blog posts. I'm a video-blogger.
Blogging ethics
Ironically, it was Jay Rosen, a noted professor of journalism at New York University, who correctly explained "blogger ethics". He wrote:
If “ethics” are the codification in rules of the practices that lead to trust on the platform where the users actually are—which is how I think of them—then journalists have their ethics and bloggers have theirs.
* Good bloggers observe the ethic of the link.
* They correct themselves early, easily and often.
* They don’t claim neutrality but they do practice transparency.
* They aren’t remote, they habitually converse.
* They give you their site, but also other sites as a proper frame of reference. (As with the blogroll.)
* When they grab on to something they don’t let go; they “track” it.
And Rebecca Blood has a definition of weblog ethics that would curl the hair of a journalist, if they had any. But in her case she hugs and embrases the idea of the free-form blogger. Still she has another set of rules:
1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.
2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
3. Publicly correct any misinformation.
4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
5. Disclose any conflict of interest.
6. Note questionable and biased sources.
If I write about a friend, like Oakland City Attorney John Russo, you know it, because I wrote or said so as I did here:
If I was given something, I say so. If I purchased lunch for someone you know it. It's up to you to either watch or go elsewhere. But on that, I've found I get the best interviews when someone talks with a full stomach.
My rule is that I insist on making quick blog update and corrections and I do so where necessary. I track an issue. And I'm biased. I use video because its authentic as I did in this one about the Harry's bouncer and the patron:
In short, I give you the World through my eyes. I give a person a platform on video, but still its through my camcorder. I talk to people I don't agree with and you know it; I talk with people I do agree with and you know it. That's my style. I insist on smart conversation but punish personal attacks. I love a good debate. I hate cyberstalkers. I'm a video-blogger not a journalist. And I'm proud of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment