Thursday, April 20, 2006
L.A.Times Suspends Blogger Over Ethics Concerns
Well, the L.A Times has suspended one of their blog writers. I say saludos to them for facing an ethics question and making the RIGHT decision instead of shucking and jiving and pretending everything is just fine like the dinosaur media usually does.
L.A.Times reporter Michael Hiltzik's "Golden State blog" on the L.A.Times' website has been suspended over revelations that Hiltzik had been using pseudonyms to respond to his own stories on his own blog as well as on other sites. The Times has said that Hiltzik violated ethical guidelines, though those guidelines are not yet made public.
(To see storyclick here)
I say, good show L.A.Times! I am not celebrating that a lefty writer has been "exposed" or taken off the Times' website, but this is a step in the right direction anyway. See, if this writer was attempting to surreptitiously stir up controversy through fake screen names or trying to attack other blogs and writers the same way, this severely damages his credibility.
If a writer is willing to lie about who he is while attempting to promote himself, what else will he lie about? Will he massage sources? Will he make them up entirely? And, doesn't hiding behind fake names tend to make readers take a writer less seriously?
Fake internet names is one of the biggest things that makes me cringe in the Blogging world. If we as bloggers want to be taken seriously, we must not only use our real names but hold to as strict ethical guidelines as "professional" reporters must. It is just so hard to take a blogger seriously if we don't know his REAL name, but only some cutesie internet moniker.
Further, it tends to infantalize our efforts as serious writers and commentators on the issues of the day if we seem to be hiding behind a cutesie screen name. How can one take a political commentator seriously if he is called Bushhogger, or Politalker, or any such kitschy name?(Not to pick on anyone with such a name directly. I am not aware of any blogger with these names I just used, so don't imagine I mean to attack a specific person. I just hate these silly names.)
So, good going L.A.Times for attempting to force a reporter to adhere to ethical conduct in his writing, at least this ONE time. Now, if only they could force the stories in print to be ethical!
(You can follow the story on HughHewitt.com, as well)
-Warner Todd Huston
Comments:
<< Home
I agree that if someone is representing the editorial/proffesoral even the advocational perspective of an organization that identification of such should be presented and at least a name that allows accountability of such opinions.
Then there is the other side of everyone...
we must, as the Good Guys, not condone the exposure of any person choosing to voice their opinion under the guise of a 'Handle, a 'Tag, or some other monicker as being a sort of 'Plant'(even if they may be), or some other anomaly that this medium opens the doors to occur.
I would agree that all right thinking individuals should , if they so choose to state an opinion anomonously, at least have the good taste for the sake of Diplomacy and Decorum, to at least seek to name yourself something that somehow conveys a coherant mental image of who you may be,a Rimbaudian concept to be sure, but a better template for respectable screen names than any other I could conceive...
If the President himself desired to Blog under an anonymous monicker, I think it should be his right, in this Brave New Cyber World.
In respect to your policy I have always included my name along with my usual online identity but I think the way this newfound anonymous voice that has been dropped into our laps, should side with the allowance of and protection of anonymity.
Thats how secrets become knowledge.
R.Langbecker Czarmangis
( I am both a Czar, and a Mangis)
Then there is the other side of everyone...
we must, as the Good Guys, not condone the exposure of any person choosing to voice their opinion under the guise of a 'Handle, a 'Tag, or some other monicker as being a sort of 'Plant'(even if they may be), or some other anomaly that this medium opens the doors to occur.
I would agree that all right thinking individuals should , if they so choose to state an opinion anomonously, at least have the good taste for the sake of Diplomacy and Decorum, to at least seek to name yourself something that somehow conveys a coherant mental image of who you may be,a Rimbaudian concept to be sure, but a better template for respectable screen names than any other I could conceive...
If the President himself desired to Blog under an anonymous monicker, I think it should be his right, in this Brave New Cyber World.
In respect to your policy I have always included my name along with my usual online identity but I think the way this newfound anonymous voice that has been dropped into our laps, should side with the allowance of and protection of anonymity.
Thats how secrets become knowledge.
R.Langbecker Czarmangis
( I am both a Czar, and a Mangis)
Hmmm. Maybe I should have been a little more clear. I mean only those wishing to be taken as serious commentators shouldn't hide behind a fake name. Further, if you are making money or being paid for your writing and opinion, you should not make up false identities as your position changes from "just a guy spouting off" to a guy representing those who are paying you.
-WTH
Post a Comment
-WTH
<< Home
a href>
|