DISQUS

Justin Kownacki · 2 years ago

I see both sides of this issue, though I'm not sure it's an issue so much as it is a case of semantics. In the final analysis, none of us knows what he or she will do in a given moment, much less under pretense of absolutes, so questions about what someone might or might not do serve only to create a theoretical platform for debate.

This is why it's so damn hard to elect presidents.

Personally, I think I'd rather see more activism, but I'd like to see it characterized as such. I find it impossible to believe in the "objective" point of view, because every word is written and every camera is pointed by someone with an opinion, no matter how neutral he or she may attempt to be. At least activism can admit it's taking sides.

andy carvin · 2 years ago

I've been surprised at how many folks have reacted strongly to the stuff O'Reilly has proposed, because online communities have _always_ had rules as long as there have been online communities. That's how FAQs got their start in the 1980s - people writing up frequently asked questions about the purpose of a USENET group or listserv, so they could know what the community norms were. I wrote my first FAQ in 1994 for a discussion group I still host today, and I'm convinced the group still exists because we had that document as a form of constitution, so participants could know what types of behavior were acceptable and which ones weren't. As long as it's developed by consensus by the community, or by the blogger who is allowing comments on his/her blog, than I don't see why that is such a big deal. Sure, there are free-fire zones on the Net, but that doesn't mean that discussion rules are new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.

Jim Long · 2 years ago

Justin, of course pure objecitvity is impossible. Beyond that let's go ahead and semantically seperate "news cameraman" from "journalist" A news cameraman answers yes to "would you shoot that?"

I like your point on transparency and think it's vitally important.

Jim Long · 2 years ago

Andy,

I think anyone who looks at the first graph of my post will conlude that I haven't reacted strongly to to the notion of a bloggers code. I'm simply not sure. Perhaps it's adolescent non-conformity. Considering this blog is less than a month old, maybe that's to be expected. Besides, I'm running out of room in my sidebars for badges. :-)

Seriously, there is merit in the idea, I'm simply not sure (see first graph of post) if I'm ready to be attached to something like that. That's ok right?

jonny goldstein · 2 years ago

I think that O'Reilly ran into trouble with his proposal for several reasons.

1) Lot's of people have preexisting beefs with him for a myriad of reasons
2) The badge he proposed (a sheriff's badge) rubbed some people the wrong way---seemed very heavy handed.
3)People didn't see his proposal as discussion guidelines for his particular blog, they saw it as an attempt to regulate speech across the blogosphere.

Rosenblum · 2 years ago

Some of our best journalists have been 'activists'. HL Mencken was certainly an activist, and I like his definition of the task of a journalist - to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. A good journalist will always be making someone (hopefully those in power) uncomfortable. David Halberstam made the Johnson Administration very uncomfortable when he was reporting from Saigon, so much so that Johnson asked Punch Sulzberger to withdraw Halberstam from the post. Halberstam's year long rotation was actually coming to an end anyway, so Sulzberger extended him for another year. In this country, unlike many others, we don't license journalists. That is what a free press is all about. Anyone may call themselves journalists - you may not think they are a journalist, which is fine. That's what free speech is all about. It, fortunately, does not need anyone's approval. The day it does, it is no longer free.

Jim Long · 2 years ago

Michael,

Kevin Sites continues in that tradition.

I'll say it again: It takes far more strength and courage to tell the truth when it flys in the face of what you believe.

Oh, and make sure you stop by and say hi to Tim Russert out at NAB. ;-)

Enric · 2 years ago

For those that view in terms of politics, the social aspects of Web 2.0 and continued widespread adoption of the net is a new opportunity for politics. They'll work selflessly for the good of the weak and maligned. Trial balloons for codes of governance will seek consensus. On the other hand, it'll be more difficult to form pressure groups since the interactions on the web are mainly individual and tend to be based on intellect. The question will be how much of their own freedom people will be willing to give up to make the internet safe for others.

Rosenblum · 2 years ago

Jim
I have to take issue with you. This blog (yours) is very much journalism and that is a good thing. It goes back to the strongest roots of journalism, and of authorship (Something that has been largely lost in our corporate television universe). Somewhere along the line we picked up the curious idea that 'journalism' was all about... oatmeal. Banal, edgeless, lacking in opinion. The perfect definition of insipid. Journalism rather has its roots in people railing with a very strong opinion and point of view. The whole idea of a free press is to allow all to express all sides - not one corporate voice to express 'all sides'. Ya just can't do that with any conviction - you end up sounding like Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

Jim Long · 2 years ago

Michael,

I'll just say you're generous in your a assessement of this little blog and the blogger, and I'll forego taking the bait on the comparison to any Presidential candidates. ;-)