And there is a way you can do this without blowing someone’s scoop (in some cases). For example: story is about the “deep web”. danah says a journalist interviewed her for the story, that they discussed various aspects of the deep web, most of which has been chatted about in research or media circles in some fashion or another. danah said this and that.

She mentions all this on the blog, and extrapolates, says stuff the journalist didn’t ask her about. Stuff that really matters but didn’t come up. Journalist can use this, and there has been no violation of scoop rules.

That’s like saying that you’re curious about how scratching someone’s car will affect the car and the owner of the car. The car will still take them somewhere but IT WILL GREATLY ANNOY THEM.

And I’m tired of reading about “old worldview” and “Gutenberg past.” It’s a matter of respect.

But in a UCaPP (ubiquitously connected and pervasively proximate) world, none of these are scarce, so long as there is something new to know (aye, there’s the rub! Journalists have to come up with something originally synthesized, as opposed to merely a collection of opinions sewn together) You blogging the complete (more or less) context (ie. interview) from which a quote will be taken is actually a natural form of the blogosphere. By rights, the excerpted quote should have a hyperlink leading to your blogging of the interview.

But inkstained minds take a long time to change…

People will come back to you because you had the balls to say all the things that others were too afraid to say.

As for the journalist. Okay. Fine. Wait a few weeks. But really, what serves the reader? Are we here to cater to ourselves, or to serve the reader?

What’s important to you about withholding? If it serves you and the reader, sometimes patience can be a key link. However, if withholding doesn’t serve the reader than who are you serving?

Just a few thoughts.

I like your blog a lot.

–zz

It’s funny… In ethnography land, i interview people all the time. Human subjects makes me go through all of these protect-the-subjects steps and yet a good 50% of the time, my subjects blog about the interview within 24 hours, often naming me as having interviewed them. So much for confidentiality. But when i see this, i absolutely love it. I get to read their perspective on the interview, that which they would put out to their peers. And in a few occasions, it was that blogging that motivated me to do follow-ups and understand the difference between what i had recorded and what they said they said. Of course, in my line of work, i’m trying to understand people in their own words, And i’m not looking for exclusivity, i’m looking for human beliefs and experiences.

But Jon, i also don’t see myself making a mountain out of a molehill here. I’m more cocking my head and going Baroo? this is fascinating. Just like another little social observation that fascinates me. There are lots of things that i don’t blog, but i’m always intrigued when someone explicitly tells me to not blog something. When it’s a friend, sure, but when it’s someone who wants to control my voice, i still have to wonder what gives them that power. In some cases, i’ve signed away certain abilities to speak (work being an obvious one). But mostly, it’s an ethical question. And i don’t know why it’s OK for the press to try to exert power over their subjects – this is certainly not cool in my field. I will offer respect, but it makes me feel unhappy to offer submission.