PressEthic

A David Carr column in today’s New York Times, When Blogs Riff On the Unfunny, questions the ethics of bloggers. Carr’s concerns arose from Gawker’s treatment of the rape of a woman by Peter Braunstein. Braunstein is a freelance writer, playwright and former writer at both the village Voice and Women’s Wear Daily. He is still at large.

Carr cites a Gawker poll as evidence of their insensitivity. The poll asks visitors to guess where Braunstein is hiding. Their options are: Having lunch with Col Allan and Martin Dunn, working at the Conde Cafeteria and Waiting Outisde Gawker HQ.

Gawker has several other posts which poke fun at the alleged assailant and his modus operandi. Essentially Carr argues that the gravity of the crime should make it off limits for tongue-in-cheek blog posts.

Carr concludes:

The great thing about the Web is that people can say almost anything they please. But it will only mature as a medium if people see that as less of a license than as a burden.

There are several reasons blogs allow people to say whatever they want:

1. Blogs are often not edited. For example, Jay Rosen’s PressThink is solely self-edited. Ive heard Rosen argue that he is tougher on himself than many editors would be. However not all bloggers are quite so stringent. It is much more likely that someone will post something that could be offensive, if it doesn’t have to be cleared by several gatekeepers.

2. Libel Law is not as strict on blogs as it is on more traditional forms of media. In a previous blog I discussed how a court ruling ensured that bloggers could protect their anonymity, therefore escaping potentially prosecution for libel. Anonymity grants people license to write statements they wouldn’t usually make under circumstances where they had to reveal their identity.

3. Bloggers are free agents, in that they do not report to organizations that can impose ethical standards on them.

However, this intrinsic freedom does not exempt bloggers from ethical standards. Carr’s column fails to mention that blogs are held to an ethical standard that is imposed by their readership.

Blogs are unlike any other medium because they are involved in a constant two way dialogue with their readers. If readers find a post offensive, they have the power and the means to make this known. In response to reader input, bloggers can clarify their position or makes changes.

If blogs are not responsive to the criticisms of their readers they will fall by the wayside. People generally read blogs because they agree with (or want to know about) the general content of the site. Readers of Gawker know the site has a slightly irreverent take on certain events. The fact that Gawker has continued to post comments making fun of Burnstein indicates that their audience find this acceptable.

The one exception to my argument that the readers are the ombudsmen of blogs, are postings that are libelous. Libel laws provide a framework for public discussion. Free speech is essential to a democracy. However, it needs to be limited so that the reputations of people are protected from gratuitous damage. Blogs should be subject to the same libel laws controlling other forms of media.