This is kind of an editorial take on a particular issue, but I’m not entirely sure where I stand. Michael Arrington has just published a piece on TechCrunch about the tyranny of government and our duty of confidentiality as bloggers. I don’t necessarily disagree with Arrington’s conclusion – that bloggers should have the guts to keep confidences. I simply wonder what I would do in the situation he describes.
As a blogger, you may not have thought about this issue before, but imagine this scenario… Someone gives you information that you blog about. It somehow relates to our national security and someone from a government organization shows up to collect the name of your source. Do you turn them over?
Read Arrington’s article for details on exactly how it did happen, but it raises an interesting issue. If you’re like me, you started blogging for purely personal reasons, never anticipating having to consider anything like this. But now I blog about all kinds of issues and sometimes touch on politics.
Diving into new realms of blogging makes me ask the question – do I consider myself a journalist at all? I didn’t go to school for journalism. I’ve never intentionally broken any kind of major story, and I’ve only held press credentials one time, and ended up not attending the event. So I don’t see myself as a journalist.
I am, however, a blogger. I may at times tread into controversial waters. I may someday be in the position of breaking some story as a blogger. Are my sources secure? What do you think? Where should the line be drawn between “blogger” and “journalist?”
About Brandon Cox
I think that it depends on the reach of the particular blogger. When you have 1 million readers you tend to be much more serious than when you have only 100. Journalists tend to have large audiences and there careers depends much on their credibility, so I think it is a matter of audience.
Sara recently posted..Ser Especifico Es La Clave Del Liderazgo Y Para Tener Exito En Los Negocios
Anyone can become a blogger but it takes one some greatness to become a journalist. We must never look down on the profession of journalism. I’m not saying that being a blogger is not that great. It’s just that journalists are already out in the field before Internet came.
BTW, Brandon. I love your blog design. Very cool and clean. Great content, to boot.
.-= Alison Moore Smith´s last blog ..BlogEngage: First 10,000 Votes =-.
Why thanks so much, Alison!
“asserting that bloggers ARE journalists”
As a long time political blogger I must take exception with that statement.
One thing many people do not realize is that MANY of the stories that you see on the news, actually became news from bloggers. I don’t know how many times us political bloggers have covered a story only to see it on FOX and CNN days, and weeks after we have already blogged all about it. Often these stories are credited to Routers or AP. But in truth, it was us.
Does any one remember Rather-Gate? That was Charles Johnson from Little Green Footballs. Remember the New Your times getting busted for their photo-shop of the bombing in Lebanon? That was Captain Bob, and later little green footballs once again.
Remember back in 2004 when the Ohio State Professor was publishing a terror blog from campus? That was me, and later FOX news.
This past month on Keith Olberman a lady from the Chicago Tea was called the “worst person in the world” for laughing at a lady telling her story of loosing loved ones at a health care town hall. I had published several stories about this nut-job long before PMSMBC. In fact, they, as well as CNN link to my blog…
We are the NEW MEDIA- Faster, better, stronger. You would just have to be on the “inside” to know. Like I said, the main stream media steals our stories all the time. Most people think it’s the AP and Fox! Nope – it’s us!
.-= StreetPundit´s last blog ..Chicago SEO Business Blogging News: Should You Use Digg? =-.
That’s a pretty fascinating side of the issue. It has a scary potential side effect, but I see your point entirely. Thanks for sharing an inside opinion.
Chuck, Arrington’s argument is simply too broad. He doesn’t make any distinction among those in the blogging community, nor does he address the issue of legal definitions. Defining the entire blogging community as “journalists” (with a particular ethical code and legal protection) is as logical as defining all writers and anyone who has a journal or takes class notes as a “journalist.” And the entire literate population can’t reasonably be deemed journalists.
The fact the bloggers often break news — and often force media to report news they don’t want to report — is an interesting twist and obviously something that is left to be hashed out. But I’m pretty sure we’d agree that even though I write about the french drain and footings on my new house (reporting!) I still can’t keep info about terrorist highjackers from the police — in the name of protecting my sources.
Or maybe we wouldn’t agree. You tell me. :)
.-= Alison Moore Smith´s last blog ..Online Bargain Shopping – Never Pay Retail =-.
Because we have men and woman (one of which is my son) putting themselves in harms way everyday both nationally and abroad I would turn the source’s name over to the appropriate authority.
Fight fight fight for the Stars and Stripes….
.-= Ms. Freeman´s last blog ..9 Tips to Help Shy People Network =-.
Thanks for weighing in!
I’m no expert in this area, but intuitively it seems that Arrington crosses a line here by asserting that bloggers ARE journalists. I would think that that has yet to be determined — legally and otherwise. He says:
**If bloggers want the same level of respect, and protection from government by the courts, they need to stand up for what’s right.**
By “respect” he seems to imply “if blogger want to be considered journalists.” I don’t know that we DO want that collectively. Personally, I don’t care if anyone thinks I’m a journalist and, in fact, I don’t have a great deal of respect for journalism as an industry anyway.
As far as revealing sources, I think it depends entirely on what was COMMUNICATED to the sources. If I tell a source their information will be confidential, then I should keep it that way — most of the time. Sorry, but there simply ARE competing values. I don’t know anyone for whom “source confidentiality” is the PRIMARY value they hold.
Let’s Arrington, for example, got an gmail from someone saying his child would be killed. Would he refuse to reveal the source due to some confidentiality ethic? I doubt it. (In fact, I’d be disgusted if he said he would.) Because he would likely value his daughter’s life above the idea of confidentiality.
So, while he’s condemning Frischling for revealing a source in a case where national security (read that: the LIVES of everyone in the country) may have been at stake — I suspect he’d “cave” for a much less serious issue, the life of a single person.
IMO his declaration of what’s “right” is a bit off kilter.
.-= Alison Moore Smith´s last blog ..6 Steps to Startup with WordPress: The Guide for the Wannabe Blogger =-.
I tend to agree, especially with the idea of having a hierarchy of values. If my nation’s security were truly at stake, I’d probably handle the issue differently than otherwise. Good points Alison!