I had a great time at Sorenson, finally meeting in person James Martin (whose love for LBJ is disturbing), Paul Anderson of Virginia Centrist, and Vivian J. Paige (who quickly moved up my list of good Democrats).
Here is a brief explanation of my ideas on blogger ethics as explained this morning:
(1) Transparency.
(2) Authenticity.
(3) Containment.
Transparency is a question of who is doing the writing. Nothing more.
Authenticity is whether what is being written is a true and honest account, not just in what is being written but why it is being written.
Containment is an action then placed upon the reader; why is this person asking me to believe their account of events?
Now obviously, there are several issues that come up with regards to these three principles.
Should one take money to blog? No, not unless you are entirely up front about who is paying you and why. Disassociated events (e.g. James Young working for National Right to Work does not invalidate his thoughts) do not apply, so if you are working for a political official, rest assured I am not talking about you. Taking money from a group or individual and not revealing that information when commenting on topics pertinent to them? I find that to be highly unethical.
Anonymous and pseudonymous (pronounced sue-doe’-nim-us) commenters and bloggers have a bit more work to do when it comes to transparency and authenticity. Jaded JD for example meets the bar by not only explaining his circumstances, but by posting authentic material. Others such as BVBL fail utterly on both counts. Several bloggers fell in between (or very close to BVBL in their methods), but understandably this is why transparency and authenticity are important qualifications for a blog.
Should all information be questioned on face value? Mike Shear brings up an excellent point, one we as poltical bloggers miss constantly — we are very quick to question the authenticity of the MSM, but how often do we apply that to what other bloggers post when it comes to rumormongering and the “echo chamber” effect? For one, I stand by the Washington Post in terms of ethics. It is my personal opinion that the WaPo takes the responsibility of responsible journalism very seriously, and that our reporters here in Virginia do an excellent job. Mike Shear, Chris Jenkins, Michelle Boorstein are all top-notch reporters (and the definition of what I consider to be journalists).
What I do find interesting about Sorenson: the tables are turning. No longer are bloggers the conscience of the MSM, but rather journalists are reminding bloggers of their responsibilities to the public square. Mike Shear, for all of his constructive criticism of blogs, is proving to be the Socratic gadfly we all need to hear.
With regards to the question of ethics and political blogs, I still believe there is room for self-regulation in the blogosphere — but that window is closing somewhat if bloggers do not take seriously the role of policing themselves and being critical (analytically, not personally) of what they read online. Bloggers need to instill the idea of critical analysis in virtually everything that is read or offered as information. Will that get rid of the tabloid blogger (a status uniformily mocked among Sorenson attendees, I discovered)? I don’t have that answer, but I do know the answer will come from today’s bloggers and how we approach the unethical blogs in our midst.
UPDATE: Since the question was asked, my ethnicity is Irish-Lebanese. Don’t know why it was a topic of conversation, but I guess I didn’t look all that Irish for a guy wit the last name Kenney… 🙂