And heck, we’ve all seen Spiderman, right?

Michael Kluckner Artist Writer – Vanishing BC Vanishing BC sounds like a great book; too bad the awesome website has no RSS. I will buy the book for $48! (tags: vanishingbc michaelkluckner rolandtanglao bc realestate) brevity.org — Lickr: Flickr,…

Yes, I am talking about an idealistic version of journalism. But just because journalism doesn’t always live up to those ideals, it doesn’t mean they should be cast aside. No, I don’t trust everything I read in the papers, but in a good paper I’ll trust that most of the facts have a basis in truth. I don’t trust Boing Boing (to stick with the same example).

And, once more, I’m *not* trying to say webloggers are journalists. I’m simply saying that when they’re communicating with huge numbers of people they have a responsibility for being sure of what they’re saying, particularly if they’re trying to persuade those people to take a particular action.

Of course plenty of weblogs, like print publications, are going to be biased and inaccurate, and always will be. I think the reason that Boing Boing has sprung to mind as my example in all this is that it would (rightly) be among the first to point the finger at old media publications who tell lies. Let he is without sin, and all that.

But somewhat like Jon Garfunkel said there (Many2Many), it’s a question of wanting the freedom but not the responsibility. However, it’s more a case of wanting the benefits (ego gratification, job leads, whatever) without wanting the responsibilities that go along with being a (somewhat-self-)proclaimed “thought leader”.

Wanting the benefits without the costs is a very adult problem to deal with, as is having leadership thrust on as much as it is sought out, don’t you think?… Sometimes more than one wants considering the burdens?

Saying “It’s just a blog so I don’t have any responsibility” is a cop out. I expect that from 12 year olds, not adults.

“What if my audience is larger than i intend it to be?”

Don’t put it on a net of close to a billion people. Put out a private blog.

“Just because someone is listening, does it mean they get to assert rights over the person talking even when the person isn’t talking to them?”

First, nobody gets to assert rights over you, especially if you take full responsibility for your actions.. then they can’t… But, yes, you are talking to people and you don’t know whether they’ll have differing opinions and whether they’ll voice them. (Close down comments if you don’t want replies, or get software that allows you to determine who you want to hear from.) That’s still so, but to a miniscule extent, in a private blog.

“Jon – why compare the bloggers’ audience understanding to publishers? Does the blogger know hir audience better than s/he does when speaking in RL?”

I’m not speaking for Jon either, but I believe his point was that bloggers claim the near-non-truth that they always understand their audience better than mortals… And no, because one gets better (more real) feedback in RL, in most respects.

“And why do you want to lump people who don’t identify as journalists as such and expect them to act as such?”

I don’t view it as such, but as a problem where opinions and facts are either intentionally or unintentionally blurred… Most people want things presented as factual to be factual, and opinions to be pretty obviously not-intended-as facts.

imho

I would argue that the BoingBoing folks are not even thinking of adjusting their posts to what people want – it’s not about that for them regardless of what others want it to be about.

I totally think that people have the right to criticize, but i also think that the criticisms are unfair because they are rooted in unreasonable expectations.

Phil – fair enough on your perspective. I think that people have the right to point other people to things regardless of whether or not they are true. It’s about information flow not simply truth. Then again, i don’t believe that truth exists and i believe that most journalists craft what they want to say using whoever it takes. I don’t assume truth in the NYTimes and i don’t assume it in BoingBoing – i simply see both as pointers to information. The difference is that BoingBoing is trying to just point people to things while NYTimes is trying to tell the truth.

I also don’t think of it as publishing so much as pointing. It’s a reference and people like the references that BoingBoing offers, regardless of their truth value.

Phil – i think that you have idealistic notions of journalism and you expect people who share material to large audiences to be journalists, both of which are really unfair. Yes, journalists re-write press releases. Yes, journalists insert their opinion and bias (hello, Fox). Yes, journalists only tell half-truths. Why is that a good standard? And why do you want to lump people who don’t identify as journalists as such and expect them to act as such?

No, I don’t think it is. Journalism involves a behaviour – research, investigation, reporting of events. Publishing is the act of distributing some “content” (for want of a better word) to some people.

Someone can publish words, and be responsible for those words, without ever having been involved in journalism.

(Although, I admit, I’m using quite a narrow and idealised definition of journalism – much of “journalism” these days seems to involve nothing more than re-writing press releases…).

I see weblogs existing on a very rough continuum. At one end there are people writing weblogs read by a handful of close friends and family – a more regular equivalent of annual round-robin letters sent out to friends. These are small scale and their activity could be described as being closer to “conversation” rather than “publishing” (although I suspect many newbie bloggers actually see it as more like publishing because that’s the closest old-media analogy).

At the other end of the continuum are, perhaps, corporate weblogs or weblogs from professional publications (eg, newspapers). Although these might have more conversational aspects than old-media (eg, trackbacks), they’re closer to publishing than a weblog for a few friends.

If a weblog simply gains readers, to the extent the weblogger is talking to thousands of people daily, I’d say that comes closer to the publishing end of the spectrum, whether the weblogger likes it or not. If you’re talking to huge numbers of people, almost entirely strangers, what you say has a much greater impact than if you were talking to some friends. This is a greater responsibility.

I understand that people might disagree with me when I think this responsibility calls for more checking of facts – maybe people should still feel free to post off-the-cuff half-truths no matter how many people they’re communicating with. But if they do so I feel they’re neglecting responsibilities (even if they haven’t asked for those responsibilities).