The free-wheelin' Web
Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic has an interesting post about what he calls an online mugging by another blogger.
What bothered me about Mr. Haber's post was not its insults (a couple of which were funny) but that he repeated a discredited accusation made by an ethically-challenged journalist about my reporting without having sought my comment. I called Haber to complain. He said: "I just wanted to promote your new blog." ... Then he said that, while the Observer "does reporting," the blog for which he writes "is a looser, more fun kind of way of writing things." Fun, in Haber's view, includes slander.
It has always been a curiosity to me that some bloggers feel no responsibility to ask for information or an explanation before they write something negative about me or the reporters here or the newspaper. The responsibility then falls to me or someone else here to correct the record or at least present an explanation for what we're being accused of. Of course, that requires us to know that the post has been written in the first place. (And for sure, it is not just me or the paper; there are some public figures and other bloggers who get reamed without being contacted for comment. I can only speak for myself.)
Most recently, one blogger headlined a piece saying we had censored his comment. Actually, our spam filter snagged it because it had several links in it. When I read his post, I suspected that had happened and resurrected the comment. I explained what happened on his blog and asked him to change the headline, and he graciously did. That's hardly slanderous and isn't a big deal. But it was factually wrong and could easily have been explained and fixed. I'm not linking to him because in the past he has asked me via e-mail for a comment about an issue he was interested in.
We aren't difficult to reach. Writing a fuller, fairer piece seems a reasonable motivation. It brings the blogger more authority and credibility. It would make the local blogosphere a more inviting, civilized place. Is that just the traditional journalist in me?
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Yes, it is the traditional journalist in you, insofar as being a traditional journalist is being mindful that there are responsibilities that go along with the right of free speech. Plenty of nurses and plumbers are aware of this balance, to be sure, but trained journalists are literally schooled in the concept.
Democratized media is a wonderful thing, and will be even more wonderful as it gradually deepens the appreciation ordinary citizens have about the value of free expression, and the potential power of words made public. When publishing, getting facts right is important. If the rise of the Web means the general public gains an appreciation for the necessity (and difficulty) of accuracy, it's possible that the role of trained journalist could become more, not less, esteemed.
Posted on May 1, 2008 7:44 PM
Okay, I'll take Goldberg on here. Nowhere in his blog post does he actually point to any evidence that the piece he's critiquing was "discredited." He makes no argument to support his assertion that the journalist was "ethically challenged." Nor, for that matter, does he clear matters up. It seems that if the accusations Goldberg is making were really that serious, the Atlantic would have taken down the offending post.
His use of the word "mugging" is a little hyperbolic, as is his use of the term "slander," which is technically incorrect, since it's written, and therefore libel.
Is that defamation for me to say that? /snark
Posted on May 1, 2008 9:08 PM
That should have been Harper's, not the Atlantic.
Posted on May 1, 2008 9:10 PM
"We aren't difficult to reach. Writing a fuller, fairer piece seems a reasonable motivation. It brings the blogger more authority and credibility. It would make the local blogosphere a more inviting, civilized place. Is that just the traditional journalist in me?"
You didn't know all that before you dived in? Looks as if some journalist wasn't doing his research.
Posted on May 2, 2008 7:15 AM
Didn't know what, Billy? That being fair and complete wasn't part of some bloggers' SOP? Sure, I knew that.
Posted on May 2, 2008 8:26 AM
"It has always been a curiosity to me that some bloggers feel no responsibility to ask for information or an explanation before they write something negative..."
In February, one of my blog posts was picked up by Instapundit, a very well-read blog with a very feisty readership. They immediately pounced on my post (about 10K of them) and many commented that you'd expect nothing less from such a "conservative."
I was amused. I usually get accused of being some sort of liberal.
I'm down on blogging these days due to, in part, rampant commenting ugliness but moreover to gotcha! and aha! commenting as well as to word-hanging (where you get hanged by the neck because you used this word instead of that word). I'm saddened to hear that many current candidates won't blog because they fear being "word-hung" in the future because they were trying to be open and conversational online. Try as I might, it's hard to be encouraging because they are being proved right.
Being online is great; I'm glad I'm there. Blogging is morphing - it has to grown and change - and I'll see where it goes next. Perhaps we'll be reading fewer but more well-read blogs? Perhaps we'll start joining online communities of only like-opinionated souls? Maybe we'll de-RSS sites that seem like they value only single opinions and POVs that disagree with our own (like I have). It's one more step toward losing our national conversation.
Blogging isn't the only way to be online, but conversation is too valuable to lose. I wish the art well.
Posted on May 2, 2008 6:27 PM