The article “Diary of a Webdiarist: Ethics goes online”, written by Margo Kingston, explores the issue concerning the ethics of online journalism. This is discussed in terms of how online ethics are applied, who is responsible for maintaining these ethics and some of the problems that can arise in the area of online journalism and how these problems are overcome from the experience of the journalist Margo Kingston. The article is divided into four main parts each examining a different area of online ethics. These four parts include a general overview of online ethics followed by three sections entitled Nom De Plumes, Offensive Material, Conflicts of Interest and Plagiarism and Corrections.
The article begins with a discussion of the interaction that the internet makes possible between journalists and readers. In the case of Kingston she’s sees this interaction as “a big plus for readers” (p. 160). Kingston acknowledges that with this interaction that she is able to enjoy with her readers via email came a set of new responsibilities when she decided to publish these emails. Kingston had total control over what appeared on her Webdiary and with that she realised she was the one who would be held accountable for any problems that may have been encountered. Thus Kingston encountered the concept of online ethics when she was forced to transform her “ethical considerations” (p. 160) in accordance with online journalism. I found in this article that online ethics are a largely ambiguous concept in that they appear to be wholly at the discretion of the author.
This brought up the relationship between ethics, power and trust. Kingston desired to create a space in which there would be mutual trust between herself and her readers. Moreso she did not want a space in which her readers found themselves to be powerless. The issue of power seems to be one of the key problem areas in the journalist reader relationship. To this end Kingston published those emails that were critical of herself, her style and her substance. As these responses as well as complaints were published it meant that Kingston’s online ethics were able to evolve “in consultation with readers” (p. 164). It was through Kingston’s interaction with readers that forced her to both clarify and justify her ethical stance when it came to journalism, especially when it was conducted online.
Writing under nom de plumes is the next issue Kingston considers. Unlike newspapers Kingston is willing to publish comments that are made anonymously, written under nom de plumes, as long as they do not consist of personal slurs or serious allegations. She does however ask that those publishing comments under a nom de plume give reasons as to why they are doing so. This stance by Kingston, in terms of people justifying writing under a nom de plume, came about due to criticism of her publishing anonymous comments.
The next two sections covered are offensive material and conflicts of interest respectively. Kingston takes a relaxed stance when it comes to offensive material stating that “it is a deliberate choice to log on” (p. 167). The article highlights that everyone will have different opinions on what constitutes an offensive comment and it is largely impossible to please everyone with what you write. Some will find fault in what you say and others will find reasons for praise. Racism is the key offensive issue with which Kingston tackles. Her position is that issues surrounding race are a means of people with opposing views to come together.
The matter of conflicts of interest is dealt with briefly by Kingston in an extract from her Webdiary. This issue links back with the matter of trust that was pointed out earlier in the article. This topic involves a trust that people who comment on Webdiary disclose information that could have led to them holding their particular opinion, for example any bias or prejudice that the reader may have held.
The last issue discussed is plagiarism and corrections. The issue of plagiarism is one to which the internet is particularly prone. This is both with people publishing false information and people making false allegations from what they read online. Kingston emphasises the fact that she and she alone has the responsibility for making sure that her work is accurate. Overall this accountability on the part of Kingston has led to a positive response on the part of the public.
Questions to think over:
Do you agree that ethics and trust amount to the same thing?
What are your opinions of comments posted anonymously online? Does a name attached make a comment more or less credible?
What are your feelings on online journalism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Blogging under an alias
Everything a "professional" writes needs to be factual, more or less, and include the author's name (and, today, an e-mail address),yet someone posting a anonymous blog can say pretty much anything they want, true or not as there is no requirement that they acknowledge responsibility by signing a real name.Like many aspects of online life, the practice of posting has evolved unsupervised. Along the way, it has became natural for people to post their thoughts without attribution,or normal to attribute the post to a nickname or one that reflects the mood of the moment. So anonymous posting has become the default,and signing your own name feels strange.This sense of lacking an identity and thus being able to avoid any consequences of messages communicated online has resulted in thousands of useless, destructive, even stupid quotes being posted daily.The solution is simple and obvious, tell the truth,speak your piece and sign your name.
I agree that comments should not be posted anonymously. Personally, the thought of spending time reading, pondering and then posting comments about news articles on-line is not very appealing in comparison, for instance, to debating the latest news at Hackett café will actual human beings. Similarly, the anonymous comments hold no appeal as the comments could have been made by anyone with or without an agenda.
Posting comments on-line requires confidence and trust. Once it is on-line there is no going back and it is daunting, how many on-line journalists (who are actually on-line journalists and not FBI agents) are as trust worthy and transparent as Margo Kingston?
I know this is slightly off topic but I think a good thing about this webdiary is that it is bottom-up in approach. Empowering the respondents, allowing them to criticise and correct the journalist. Also I think it’s commendable of the author to be so willing to discuss ethical issues openly as this again empowers the reader. However one could argue that she is opening herself up for mass criticism, which she doesn’t seem to mind? Also the journalist runs the risk of people being too critical and possibly criticising her just for the sake of it? (e.g. when she disclosed her pay it didn’t have the desired effect and received much criticism).
‘Ethics are ideals, not black letter law’ (2003:165). I believe that this is quite a poignant statement as it suggests that ethics can be subject to interpretation. Very often ideals are unattainable thus is the author implying that ethics can be altered to fit the situation. I agree that ethics are ideal in that if everyone/thing was politically correct then a uniform set of ethics would be easy to adhere to. However as this is not the case, especially within an online forum where there are bound to be ethical breaches, I think it is important to adapt the ethics to fit the situation.
This type of interactive online journalism is beneficial to all concerned as the author says that she too learns from readers and in fact alters her views when taking into consideration others viewpoints which can only be a good thing. Thus as a new form of journalism I think it can be quite successful.
In terms of anonymity I agree that when a source is anonymous it is likely that one will question the reliability and factuality of the detail. Plus in terms of referencing the source it is nigh on impossible to gain any credit from quoting an anonymous source, too much speculation surrounds such sources and rightfully so given the wealth of inaccurate material online.
Apologies that this is very scatty and unstructured!
Hello - a belated response! I agree with you guys on the whole. It's true, there is a reluctance to post your name on the internet, isn't there? Even for setting up this weblog I was inclined to come up with a username other than my own. Is it just online habits? Or perhaps a security measure? Or jsut based in cowardice and fear of repurcussions from your 'virtual' actions. I, for one, would be uncomfortable with posting my name online in a forum such as Webdiarist, but I do think we aree conditioned to not divulge personal information.
I don't trust what people out there would do with the information... However, I also can't imagine logging on to online forums and slandering, insulting and threatening others online. So there's not a motivation to hide due to that. Important, I think.
As for online journalism, it probably is the way of the future, isn't it? I reckon newspaper readership is steadily in decline (how many of us admitted to reading papers online when we discussed it in class?) and these forums allow for so much interactivity which is appealing to the generla public, I think. Everyone wants to be heard to varying degrees - and it stops you from sitting at the breakfast table, shouting at the newspaper about how stupid the columnist is.
That's just not cool.
Post a Comment