I’m not much of a blogger myself but I do like to check out my friends blogs. It’s a way for me to keep updated with what they’re doing. Most of what I look at is photo blogs because I don’t like to sit in front of my computer reading, the less reading I have to do…the better. I don’t like to search random blogs since I don’t really trust the reliability of these blogs.
I found an article that addressed the issues of ethics in blogging, specifically for political blogs, entitled “If I Break a Rule, What Do I Do, Fire Myself?” Ethics Codes of Independent Blogs. The article looked into who the writers of these political blogs were, whether they were journalists, professionals, etc. and if there was a code of ethics stated on the blog. It also questioned whether or not there should be a code of ethics and if so what it should be. A lot of people are turning to blogs now as their information source so I think that reliability is a major issue. The conclusion is that bloggers might not accept a code of ethics. One blogger asked, “if I break a rule [of ethics], what do I do, fire myself?” Others feel that there is no need for a code of ethics since “the blogosphere will typically ‘fact-check you’re a** if needed. Bad info and continued lies calls your credibility into doubt, which makes your blog a lot less worth reading. Sort of a self-correcting phenomenon’ (Dube, 2003).” What do you think? Should there be a code of ethics for blogs and what would it include?
As I’ve already mentioned I don’t like to read blogs or articles on my computer which is what I’m doing now, so I’ll admit that I haven’t read the article completely through. If you’re interested in reading the article here is the link.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=25138376&site=ehost-live
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A couple of really interesting points, Brenda. First, if all of our information is on-line, are we really reading this material very carefully the way people used to read the newspaper or has skimming become the only way people get information. How does that effect our understanding of the world? This is further complicated by the fact that what we are skimming is not necessarily being fact checked, doesn't our entire understanding of the "the world out there" become increasingly superficial? Of course there is an alternate possibility which you hint at with mention of the blog-o-sphere fact checking for you. Our realm of information is SO much broader then it used to be and we have so much more access to information then any other society in history-- perhaps this breadth makes up for the lack of depth. So what if a particular blog is slanderous and wrong, we'll just move on to the next blog eventually the truth will appear. However, this is less the case when we look at the political sphere, as is obvious right now when it seems like the nation is gearing up for yet another long election season filled with campaigns which don't have the luxury of letting the information filter to the top-- bad information released at the right moment can, and has in the past, dramatically impact an election.
I don't know the answer to these problems, but the questions you raise lead directly to some very central issues of modern communications systems.
Post a Comment