News-Record.com

Your man Patrick Thibodeau has a rather narrow view of blogs, doesn't he? Consider two of the more popular blogs across all arenas: Engadget and Gizmodo. I read them both regularly and have rarely encountered "sharp opinion," "cogent analysis" or "stinging blog copy."

As long as the topics covered in the blog are of interest to some people (and maybe even if no one gives a damn, too), how can it be faulted?

Does the code of ethics for journalism prevent opinion of any kind? Doesn't the reporter have an opinion, but try to mask it in his stories? Isn't the recognition of your own bias a necessary precursor for writing without slant? I have no problem with reporters sharing their views in an arena other than what is deemed news.

Where this leaves me I'm not sure. As a practicing cameramanthropologist I shoot footage, write copy and edit video for my TV station employeron a daily basis. At night, I hold up in my upstairs lair and blog at will.

I put a great deal of effort in both my journalistic endeavours and the two continually feed off each other. Sound judgement on both ends keeps bread on my table and ideas on my laptop. While my own blog isn't the giant some are, it's by no means, dull, unethical or devoid of credibility. you know, I simply MUST find the time to read Mr. Whatshisname's myopic thesis, but first I have to find the energy to CARE...Nope, still nothing.

Sic 'em, Lex! Obviously they weren't reading very deep into the posts. Looks like the writer was playing the song his bosses were hoping to hear.

Actually, I don't think Patrick and I are that far apart. He suggests that some of the things he's looking for might become more common IF existing ethical codes are rewritten to some extent. I would argue that that rewriting, or evolution, already is happening. Just for starters, there's far more transparency in American newspapers in general than there ever has been, and here at the N&R that trend is even more pronounced (partly because I'm pushing it but mainly because JR is).

There's this notion among many readers that one's political bias inevitably shapes one's reporting and/or writing. Greater transparency in this regard -- that is, acknowledging those biases publicly -- will show that this belief is true in some cases and demonstrably not true in others.

This is a classic case of confusion between the tool and the objective of the people using that tool. (Frankly, I think it may make Mr. Thibodeau a tool, but I won't go there because it would probably undercut the argument I'm about to make about being civil.)

My two cents would be that laying out an opinion may be dangerous territory...may be. And I'm probably not smart enough to draw the line with any precision. But offering up some analysis, giving it a little voice rather than Dateline:Lede:Nut:Quote:Context:etc... seems well within easily defined boundaries, even for the necessarily blunt tools offered up by the tools of journalism ethics.

This guy also buys into the myth that copy has to be "stinging" to have value, a viral attitude that no doubt spread to the blogsphere from cable TV. We've watched dishonorable, disingenuous and disconnected dunderheads duke it out on talk shows for so long we think nothing is interesting other than someone be acerbic or mean or whatnot.

Invective is not value.

Let me suggest that clarity, thoughtfulness, good humor (rather than cutting humor at someone's expense), humility, intelligence and fairness are virtues that readers might come to cherish in blogs. Indeed, they are in far, far shorter supply than the steaming pile of invective that is served up on what often passes for television news programs.

But I'm just a damned boring news writer, what do I know.

You may feel free to send this along to Mr. Thibodeau with my compliments.

I've enjoyed and appreciated the comments to my original post, and thank Lex for sharing it with this community. But I stand by my original post.

I do want to clear up one point: I wasn't suggesting that effective blogs are insult vehicles. When I used the word "stinging," I meant it in the context of a well-argued piece that sticks with you.

I don't want to distract from this overarching point: Traditional newsroom ethics constrain reporters, in style and substance, from being effective bloggers.

While one writer here suggests that a blog can offer clarity, thoughtfulness, good humor without strong opinion, I don't disagree, but then what is a blog?

For instance, suppose a company is opening a nanotechnology manufacturing plant in the News-Record coverage area. As the reporter covering the story, I might assemble a blog with links to sites that discuss health concerns associated with nanotechnology manufacturing. Could I argue that these concerns give lawmakers reason to regulate and inspect a nanotech plant? Not as a reporter. What I could do is write something like: Some believe nanotechnology manufacturing ought to be regulated, and ask readers of my blog to comment on this: Does nanotechnology manufacturing require new regulations?

But at this point, my blog posting about nanotechnology is, in effect, similar to a news story sidebar without in-depth sourcing. (Although my question alone should nanotechnology manufacturing be regulated? may be seen by some as a cloaked effort to influence opinion.)

So what is a blog? A blog can be anything; they aren't constrained and you can define a blog anyway you want. By this definition, beat reporter blogs, even if they are limited by journalistic ethics, are still blogs. But I don't buy a blog-can-be-anything argument.

Blogs began as personal opinion journals, more akin to columns than to new stories. And the best column writing makes a case for something; it builds an argument, with premises and a supported conclusion. Effective writing says something and it challenges the reader. Thoughtful writing leads somewhere.

That's not to say an even-handed encyclopedia entry, or my hypothetical nanotechnology example doesn't have the potential to be thoughtful writing -- it can be, but it's also not a blog because of the limitations imposed on it.

The beat reporter "blogs," aren't really blogs. They are more akin to author footnotes: they elaborate and add additional detail or raise questions not asked in the story. Can there be value to that for a newspaper? I'm not sure. Is it a blog? No.

My concern is about beat reporters who blog about the things they cover. Editors don't face as many limits, and should be encouraged to try out this format. And using blogs to generate feedback on letters is a great idea. But if beat reporters have to artfully dance around ethical constraints, I think they will feel, in the end, frustrated and limited by this format, and readers as well.

Patrick Thibodeau
www.jobbloggy.com

"The beat reporter "blogs," aren't really blogs."

Patrick: Blog is a noun. You're using it as a verb. Cut it out. It makes you look silly.

A blog is simply a way to convey and discuss information - no more, no less. Sure, it may have began a way to disperse opinion, but why should that be the only definition? If I buy a spatula can flip omlets does that mean I can't use it for pancakes?

Just as the news pages and the opinion pages serve a different purpose in the print edition, so our news and opinion blogs serve different purposes out here in the cyber world.

And if you don't think beat reporters can handle controversial topics on their blog, head on over to the News & Record's chalkboard blog and watch Bruce and Jennifer deftly guide the conversation.

You see a newsroom journalist's adherance to ethical guidelines as a constraint, while it should be seen as a selling point. Opinions are a dime a dozen out on the Internet. Help understanding an issue in depth is far more valuable, both now and in the future.

Let me help you frame this issue a bit better: Should beat reporters write opinion about the things they cover? No, neither on the opinion page nor on a blog. Do they need to write opinion to have an effective, interesting useful blog? No. They can ad value to the story at hand by way of the blog in ways that newsprint doesn't allow.

So where does this get us? Here's where I see all this going:

Think 50 years out (or 100, or whatever it turns out to be) when we no longer kill trees to deliver news. Instead it's all on line. It's not hard to see how the progeny of today's news organizations would give birth to an online system that still had a separation between news content and opinion.

The news writers are still needed to provide a common set of facts for all the opinion folks to chomp on. Although the information could probably be given to users in any number of ways, it's not hard to imagine our delivery system is very blog-like in its format.

Let me end on a warning about the brand of logic your using: if blog is a verb, if it does indicate a particular way of doing things separate and apart from traditional journalism, then you are making the argument for those who want to dismiss bloggers as a bunch of hacks who can be ignored.

I don't think either you or I would believe that to be the case.

Mark, I appreciate your argument and see your point, although, noun or verb, I remain with mine. But, that said, I applaud you and your newspaper for its effort and wish you nothing but the best for it.

To keep the conversation going: William Powers at National Journal has some things to say on this subject.

To the question of how reporters who must try to answer to journalism ethical issues and write a blog. How about a McLaughlin Group format with the reporter holding McLaughlin's position and assembling a small team of opinion makers who are not working journalists, guiding their discussion with key questions, keeping them on task, and letting the rest of us comment on their comments and on the McLaughlin group leader's questions.

That's a good, if labor-intensive, idea. I'm putting that into my "Reconsider when/if our new publishing system is ever up and running" file, which, unfortunately, has grown rather fat of late ....

Regarding your goal of making the transition toward an open-source, multimedia news operation that remains a viable business and blogs. Blogs are in their infancy. Who knows what they will become. Who knows what an "open-source, multimedia news operation that remains a viable business" will become. This business has just been born. Both are like the newspaper business in 1709 with Addison and Steele. I am excited by your experiment. The ethics will develop and evolve. The important thing to remember is the dialogue. Behaviors and consequences are the product of premises. Premises lead to conclusions, and conclusions lead to actions or inactions. For a society to grow, premises must grow, change and evolve. The dialogue is the key to premise change.