Blogger Influence Raises Ethical Questions

This AP story addresses the question of whether blogs should be held to the same ethical standards as journalists:

"Jonathan Dube, managing producer at MSNBC.com and publisher of CyberJournalist.net, modified the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics and urged fellow bloggers to adopt it. The principles: Be honest and fair. Minimize harm. Be accountable.

Longtime blogger Rebecca Blood circulated guidelines that call for disclosing any conflicts of interest, publicly correcting any misinformation and linking to any source materials referenced in postings.

"It seems pretty clear to me that having some kind of standard contributes to an individual blogger's own credibility," she said."

First, alot of influential journalists don't adhere to the code of ethics above. Second, the free market of ideas determines a blogger's credibility - not some phrase or list of ethical behaviors. If a blogger continually spews forth trash that is quickly debunked or refuted by other bloggers, than people will naturally tend to move away from that blogger. However, if a blogger exposes some big story or calls a journalist or other blogger on a misstatement, then that blogger's credibility rises and he or she will receive more trust or attention provided that he or she doesn't later betray that trust.

Since there are limited numbers of major news sources, the journalists at these outlets need a standard of conduct because they have a wider audience that depends solely on these sources for their information. Blogs are an alternate source of information that has to be actively sought out by the reader. As the advent of cable news has loosened the grip of the Big 3 networks on information, so will blogs loosen the grip of the NYT, LAT, and WaPO provided that they prove their worth through the free market.

Wait a sec, why am I working so hard to articulate this? Just read Blog!