halfacanuck

But I guess there's a moral in this. Just as none of the media outlets that covered the Christmas lights story checked his claims for veracity, I didn't either. It raises the issue of trust, of course: I trusted his claim and blindly linked to his site. But the onus of responsibility is on me, not him. I am not exonerated by saying "How was I supposed to know it was a hoax?". If it's true that blogs are simply another part of the media, "citizen journalism" or "bottom-up journalism" or whatever you want to call it, then bloggers also need to look carefully at issues like media ethics.

If we're going to take it upon ourselves to be part of the media, if we're going to claim we now are the media, then we have to act like it. We have the exact same responsibilities to the public as do the traditional media outlets. Is there any intrinsic lower standard for "citizen journalists" than for those employed by newspapers or TV news shows? I would argue there is not. The burden of proof lies as heavily on me as it does on Tom Brokaw: obviously far fewer people read my blog than watch his show, but the weight of responsibility is not proportional to the size of the audience.

I've already been trained in media ethics, and already been employed (at least somewhat) in the traditional media, but the vast majority of bloggers haven't. Most have probably not given any consideration to whether they have any responsibility towards their readers. I would say they clearly do. Amateur journalists are not excused simply because they're amateurs. As cool and exciting as the "citizen journalism" concept is, it's in real danger of being undermined and discredited before it has a chance to succeed if we don't take seriously enough the issues traditional media has had centuries to contemplate and formalize, and no-one will be keener to see this discrediting than the traditional media, who've been roasted on the spit often enough over their own transgressions (think Rathergate, Jayson Blair, et al).

Journalists – in the traditional, old-media sense – have a great deal more to think about than simply if something is a good story or how best to write it. The legal issues alone, ranging from copyright law and plagarism through defamation and the thorny issues of personal privacy, are legion (and in parts confusing) enough that many books have been written on the subject (including this one, which I had to actually read). Then on a more abstract level is media ethics itself, another topic on which much has been written. A personal (as opposed to corporate) ethical code is perhaps one of the most important traits of a successful journalist, because it inspires trust. It's what separates Bob Woodward from Harold Fiske, for example.

That's not to say tabloid newspapers and the journalists who write for them can't make a useful contribution to public discourse – they can. But even tabloid journalists have a defined ethical code (believe it or not) which they've consciously formulated. It may not align with your code of ethics, or even most peoples', but it's there. In my opinion bloggers need to do this, too. Not only because their reputations depend on it, but because those who participate in the public discourse as creators as opposed to observers have a civic and, arguably, a moral responsibility to do so. Is your blog a tabloid, or is it a broadsheet? Is it the National Enquirer or is it the New York Times? It makes a considerable difference.

Amazing what tangents I can get onto from a Christmas lights webcam hoax, ain't it?