Publish2 has a post up about the rumored heart attack suffered by Steve Jobs and how CNN’s iReport and other citizen journalism outlets can be gamed and hurt the credibility of all:

When we first conceived of Publish2 as a platform exclusively for journalists, we worried that we would take a lot of flack for trying to define who a journalist is at a time when that definition is expanding. But we realized that our “velvet rope” is really about what we want to keep OUT, i.e. covert PR, undisclosed marketing, and SPAM. That’s why rather than a definition we opted for a set of editorial standards.

The issue with citizen journalism is not about who is qualified or smart enough to be a journalist. It’s about TRUST and TRANSPARENCY. It may not be brain surgery, but (dis)information in the wrong hands does have the potential to do real harm. There’s a reason why journalism has developed standards for reporting, sourcing, fact checking, and accuracy.

It’s because these standards protect people.

The same applies not only to open systems like CNN’s iReport or Digg but blogging in general.  Anyone can do it and anyone can create an aura of credibility under a false name and false pretenses with the intent of gaming the system and ultimately harming someone or a cause.  Trust and transparency are key to legitimatizing a forum, but it’s going to take a lot of gatekeeping and cleaning up to ensure the cream rises to the top.

Over at Social Media Today, Matt Rhodes found a recent judgment that muddies the water on whether online defamation is slander or libel:

To date it has been thought that defamatory comments in online communities, bulletin boards and other chat on the internet are libel. They are published and a permanent record is kept. That’s why I was intrigued to read a report in OutLaw today of a recent judgement that took the opposing view.

Here’s the comments from Mr Justice Eady who tried the case:

“[Bulletin board posts] are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out,” he said in his ruling. “Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or ‘give and take’.”

“When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions,” said the ruling. “People do not often take a ‘thread’ and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it.”

The facts of the case are complex and involve multiple parties, so I’d recommend reading the full background on OutLaw here.

Personally, I understand that the difference matters in a legal sense but many times someone accuse of slander counters with “it’s not slander online, it’s libel, so nyah!” and the proceeds to act as if they won the argument when the problem of defamation remains unsolved.  But it’s interesting to see a legal precedent and what that might mean for online conversations.

Doug over at Below the Beltway has a good roundup of what’s really going on with the Associated Press’s “attack” on blogs and fair use.

Oh, look, another blogging ethics kick.  But I’ll keep it brief.

I can understand people surfing the web using proxy services.  Don’t want folks to know what you’re doing and all that, that’s fine, privacy rules.  But commenting by proxy just stinks to high heaven.

J’s Notes will not allow proxy comments.  I’m sorry.  You can comment anonymously, that’s fine, but if you use a proxy, you’re hiding a little too much and I won’t have it here.

Just as blog posting should be above the board, so should comments.  Those participating in the conversation should be honest if they hope to be heard.

Scott White asks bloggers: how far are you willing to go for full disclosure? The question is important and reminds me that I have no disclaimer here on J’s Notes, even though the issue has come up in the past during conversations I’ve had with others.

Scott uses Mitch Radcliffe’s ZDNet disclosure as an example of a lot of information and maybe too much. Though maybe it isn’t, considering that bloggers at ZDNet may find themselves blogging about any number of things which Radcliffe might be involved in. So while intensive, Radcliffe’s disclosure is exactly the type of stuff he needs to reveal if folks are going to take him and his blogging seriously.

In Scott’s case, a short and sweet disclosure is all he needs since he probably won’t find himself blogging about a business he may have investments in or about any number of things he may have a personal vested interest in. Aside from his own politics, which he defines just fine.

This connects directly with a blogger giving his audience enough information to be able to evaluate the source. If people are going to trust the blogger and his information, they should probably know if the blogger has any vested interest in what they’re talking about. Or whether or not this opinion is their own or the product of a paycheck or other outside influence.

How much one says in such a disclaimer is up to the blogger and the subject matter they find themselves discussing. For many there are ways to be brief instead of posting a full resume that simply acts to show off, but for others you may find a disclosure the length of your arm in order to be all encompassing.

In the case of J’s Notes, it doesn’t have to be much:

Any opinions or information on J’s Notes reflects the opinions and thoughts of Jason Kenney and do not necessarily represent the opinions or or official policies of RedStormPAC or WVCW.

What more do you need?

4:50 p.m. NOTE: After receiving notification from readers seeking some clarification I realize that this post might be a whole lot vague.  For starters, this is concerning a pseudonymous political blog.  I do know what blog is being discussed but want to avoid naming names as everyone else has.  That said, I think by reading Jane’s original post you can get a feel for the gist of the site being discussed as it fits a certain “type” of blog that I’m trying to address generally.  What I see at issue here is pseudonymous blogging and how it creates an ethical dilemma for bloggers and blog readers.  This applies beyond political blogs and continues on a thread I’ve harped on quite a few times in the past: ethical blogging.  I’m sorry if my original post and title misled anyone or brought folks here through what may appear as less than honest means.  If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me directly.

No one’s naming names, but Jane at Conservativa has gotten the ball rolling on wondering about the face(s) behind a blog that’s relatively new to the Virginia Blogosphere:

1. The visual format is standard/well-done. No rookie mistakes at all. But also no graphics, photos, etc. to lend personality.
2. Writing quality overall too good to be from an inexperienced writer.
3. Overall tone of the writing: uneven. Mostly boilerplate, but then it flares into mini-rants.
4. Peculiar set of RSS feeds and links in the blogroll. Indicative of a wish to get read and get links in return, rather than expressive of a person with a point of view.
5. It has been up and running less than a year.
6. The author is pseudonymous.

(There’s one more thing which I have not listed, and it’s the real giveaway). The presence of all these things together sets off my B.S. detector.

Scott, Jim Hoeft and Jim Riley all have brief takes as well.

Now, while there shouldn’t be any blogging police asking for a new blogger’s papers, this issue is quite vital to the future of the blogosphere.

Transparency.

There are times when writing under a pseudonym is necessary and makes sense: whistle blowing, impact on employment/day-to-day livelihood, etc. But blogging under a pen name should also be greeted by bloggers and readers alike with a certain level of suspicion. Especially when the blogger comes out the gate appearing to want the widest audience possible with only the slightest hint of actual substance on who is really behind the blog.

The problem with this type of blogging is how the rest of the world perceives it. Many people who don’t regularly do blogs don’t know what to make of a pseudonymous site. Many actually accept this as the norm, and dismiss blogging as a result. Others rely on it too much, which then allows the author to be less than honest in their purpose, creating stories and the perception of actual news where there otherwise might be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from creating a blog under a false name and stating an outright lie. There is nothing preventing that same person from creating five other blogs under other false names that repeat this lie, that comment on the site to make it seem like this lie has feet, that sock puppet with one another to give the perception of meat when there’s nothing there.

Not that this level of abuse has been seen (yet), but this is the snowball the blogosphere faces if it does not question its sources, whether they be other blogs or anonymous e-mails that pop up in the inbox.

Pseudonymous blogging has its place, and many pseudonymous bloggers have been somewhat successful, establishing themselves either through their reasoned work on their blogs or the poorly kept secret of their real name. But look across the Virginia blogosphere and you’ll see the large number of bloggers who started under a pseudonym and now blog under their real name. Transparency has won out because we’ve been able to assess them, evaluate them, criticize them, and ultimately welcome them into our circles. Even blogging by elected officials and campaigns has been welcomed.

But a healthy dose of skepticism is bound to great new pseudonymous bloggers and rightfully so. A lot of the Virginia political blogosphere is built on a two-way street paved in trust and respect. You have to earn your pen name. You have to earn our trust. And you have to be honest with us so we can do that.

Too many of us take this blogging thing way too seriously to willingly allow it to be abused for short term political gain.

First, my apologies to Preston Yancy for if it appears as if I’m piling on him.  I’m not, you just happened to make a post that re-inspired my thoughts on this matter.

Every now and then the blogosphere seems to be faced with a question on commenting and the responsibilities of a blogger to his readership wishing to do so.  Most recently, Preston Yancy has called on Don Harrison and Jon Baliles to allow comments on their websites.  Yancy both makes and breaks his argument with the following comment:

That is interesting since Harrison was critical of the School Board; because, the public could not speak at the meeting.

Ahem.

Blogs are not meetings that are open to the public.  Nor are individual blogs public forums.  Blogs are one man soapboxes that sometimes allow comments from the peanut gallery but have every right to limit those comments.

I have in the past been accused of “censoring” comments on my website.  While any instance of this has been an oversite and I strive to allow all people to speak on J’s Notes, the only individual with unlimited free speech  in the People’s Democratic Republic Of Jason is, well, me, Jason.  (And maybe my mother.)  This is my website.  I am under absolutely no obligation to provide a voice on this site to anyone other than myself.

And neither are Don or Jon.  (Can I just call them Don Jon collectively?  Would they beat me up for that?)

So how is one to respond?  Well, you can e-mail them directly or, as Yancy has done, create your own blog and enter the conversation. Because that’s what blogs are, conversations.  And if you truly feel so strongly on an issue, why allow your thoughts to be buried in the comments section of a post at someone else’s site when you can put it up front and center on your own?  Like I’m doing here with this topic.

You wouldn’t dare to tell people what to write on their sites.  Why would you assume to tell them to let you write on their site?

David Hazinski calls on traditional media to regulate it’s “citizen journalism” content:

Having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It’s just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere.

Journalism organizations should head that off. Citizen reports can be a valuable addition to news and information flow with some protections:

• Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.

• They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning.

• Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff’s auxiliaries are trained and certified.

The first point should be a given.  That traditional media would run with a random story fed to it by a “citizen journalist” without trying to back it up is reckless and completely erodes any confidence the public should have in that outlet.

The second point is a bit tricky as media continues to be market driven in that it’s a for-profit enterprise that relies on sucking in consumers.  To do this many outlets may find themselves going out on a limb on things, using and adage that it’s better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission and correcting themselves should they screw up.  Aside from that, most traditional media outlets would already assert that follow and enforce standards for their content.  Having them do so yet again won’t solve anything.

The third point, while interesting and worthwhile, is another unenforceable tactic that simply attempts to turn “citizen journalists” into “journalists”.  Yet courses would most appeal to those citizen journalists who are already trying to be ethical in their work and understand that there is a responsibility that comes with journalism.  The splash-and-trash elements that still dominate some areas of citizen journalism would continue to do business as usual.  It’s the same flaw with trying to create or enforce any Code of Ethics among bloggers: only those who are already trying to follow such a code will sign on, those who do not won’t.

Josh Wolf has more over at CNET News.

12:25pm Update: Style Weekly editor Jason Roop responds in the comments and clears some things up.

Yesterday John Sarvay noted that Style Weekly has changed their content management set up to where he can’t find Style’s stories a day before the issue hits the stands. To do this, Style hired Copeland Casati Media to do the technical grunt work. (Copeland guys, what’s the point in the “splash” page that is all puny but doesn’t really tell anyone anything about your site other than “humor”? Do ya really need it?)

Now I can’t fault Style Weekly for wanting to keep people from getting a sneak peek at their super top secret content. Who wants prior discussion of issues that creates hype and an interest in content and maybe makes people who otherwise wouldn’t care pick up an issue of Style Weekly? And I’m certainly not about to fault Copeland for taking pride in their work. Good job locking web surfers out. Kudos.

So is it really necessary to go and then harass a blogger for loving Richmond and wanting to highlight Style Weekly’s take? Tossing around accusations of stealing when all that’s happening is a quoting and linking to content freely available on the web is pretty gutsy. But it also shows just a wee lack of understanding about the way the web works. Which isn’t good for a company that specializes in, oh, web media and presentation. Maybe Copeland’s enthusiasm for their work and their clients is a selling point, but this is the type of thing that really could rub any number of readers and potential clients the wrong way.

Oh, boy, is there a throwdown happening at Ben Tribbett’s blog Not Larry Sabato! Ben Tribbett started it by having the balls to attempt to call out Washington Post’s Tim Craig for supposedly failing to cite a blog source:

Lowell had a great scoop earlier that Mark Warner’s primary challenger has a criminal record. I’m not even mentioning the guy by name- I don’t think he will make the ballot, and isn’t even worth a mention.

Anyway, right away Tim Craigs teals Lowell’s scoop and runs an item on the new WaPo blog.

Did Tim Craig not attend journalism school? Does he not have a ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY to site the published sources???? What a bunch of crap.

First, Ben Tribbett makes the huge assumption that Tim Craig found this via Raising Kaine. Someone signing their name as Tim Craig responded in the comments:

I did not get it from Raising Kaine. I got a clip of the Roanoke Times article emailed to me this afternoon from a Democratic source. I then had our Washington Post researchers independently verify the article through a search of court records After that, I called the gentleman in question to speak to him. I did scan Raising Kaine at one point this afternoon and never saw a headline about this matter.

As for you assertion, it is laughable for you to lecture me or any member of the Richmond press corps on journalistic ethics.

Oh SNAP!  Ben Tribbett then continues to whine that Tim Craig has never cited a Virginia blog on his blog posts.  Which leads to Ben’s second assumption and one that happens throughout the blogosphere.

While it is considered the polite and proper thing to do, bloggers are under no real obligation to cite their sources for their posts.  None at all.  And while this gray area might get a bit blurry when media outlets enter the blogosphere, they aren’t under any greater obligation than anyone else.  Especially if they end up doing the grunt work of verifying the tip, whether that tip came from a concerned reader, a blogger, or the man in the moon.

If someone finds something on my site and shares through theirs, do they owe me credit or a finder’s fee?  I guess if I had a ego that needed a bit of a stroke I could get upset about it, but with the way blogs work and the viral method of the spreading of information, it’s really hard to hold people on citations.  If I find something interesting on another blog that they found on another site that they found on yet another site, where do I give the credit?  To the place I found it?  To the real source?  And what’s to say I didn’t find it through some other means?

This is especially hard to hold people to when it comes to political blogging and the mainstream media.  The mainstream media may find something out the same time as or even before a blog, but because of their own guidelines and ethics, they have to do a bit of research to verify information.  Blogs by and large fail to do that, so if they get what looks to be an amazing scoop it’s up right away, truth and fact-checking be damned.  Hell, the majority of the time blogs fail to correct their own errors (something Ben Tribbett has NEVER done).

So folks need to hold up a bit before tossing ethical hand grenades (especially Ben Tribbett).  If you feel that a citation was missed or a blog has provided an insight that someone has missed, there are usually comment sections where you can add your own words.  Of you have your own blog where you can write and link around and do whatever corrections to the record you feel you need to do.

But if you’re going to go out on a limb and try and call someone out on ethical blogging you may want to first make sure you have some ground to stand on, whether that’s by checking your facts before making the accusation or just making sure you have any room to speak on ethics in blogging.

Kenney the Elder takes on Time’s Morality Quiz and “lifeboat ethics”:

Of course, what is being argued isn’t a case of utilitarianism in the purest sense, but proportionalism. Proportionalist ethics make the argument that one can do evil and affect good — a contradiction in the highest regard.

Hence where lifeboat ethics ultimately fail. As the captain of the boat, it holds 800 lbs. of weight, and there are 1200 lbs. of person. As the boat rapidly fills with water, you state the situation to the crew and ask for volunteers. None reply. What do you do?