Friday, January 04, 2008

[ethical blogging] poetic justice

Clearly, the intent behind yesterday's post on ethics was not made clear enough and that was because I failed to give the background and therefore the real thrust of the post. So let me present this as a melodrama.

First, the motley cast of characters:

The Councillor - actually a soon to be councillor come the next elections. An excellent man and blogger who is very popular.

The Quiet Blogger - another popular personality whose blog many find to their taste and who has occasional, well constant really, outbursts at the government.

The Rattlesnake - likes to get inside and bite people.

The Initiator - otherwise known as T-1000 who "never, ever stops"; he likes to start things and is popular with many but his cavalier manner puts others off. His support is ebbing away.

The Ornery - an excellent blogger and good man who often misinterprets things and yet raises excellent points along the way.

The Deceiver - otherwise known as the Messiah, his blog is his God and he uses it to further his nefarious aims.

Goodheart - a great lady blogger who rises to authority and is under the spell of the Deceiver.

Synopsis

Long ago, a group of people gradually gathered together at the instigation of the Initiator and were concerned with the blogosphere. Out of this an ethos was born which simply reflected what Cllr Tony Sharp [not the one in the story] wisely said:

Surely any blogger worth their salt should be posting in a way that is ethical and moderating comments that offer nothing but abuse.

Ah yes, Tony but that doesn't take into account the snakes in the grass who put themselves onto others. No blogger is an island, after all. The story unfolds:

The Rattlesnake decided to publish a series of "Testimonials" which were ascerbic and often inaccurate portrayals, in a scurrilous manner, of some other bloggers, including The Councillor and the Quiet Blogger.

These latter were understandably upset and the Initiator and colleagues promised to look into this but didn't because pressing matters pressed and the truth was - it didn't directly affect them, may they be forgiven for this. Here is the first principle of wrongdoing:

We fail to act in support of other bloggers when it doesn't directly affect us or when we ourselves have other more pressing matters on our hands.

At the same time, fine words were being written about mutual support and ethics and the like and most people nodded on with approval. The injured parties, however, suffered on in silence.

Then, into this, came the Deceiver, who'd somehow got into the picture and he started his Messianic mission to allegedly [for legal purposes] use his blog and fellow bloggers to produce sexual acolytes and a culture of Pleasure Dome which, as many said, was his own business.

Except that first one then other victims contacted the Initiator who then did some exploring.

The Ornery now came into the picture, rightly claiming that it was all well and fine having noble and lofty aims if we never utilize them. He walked away from his fellow bloggers. Meanwhile, the Initiator felt it was time to expose the Deceiver who can cast magic spells, especially on women but in doing so, the former didn't count on the assiduous pull of the Deceiver. Only the victims knew the real truth which was shown in e-mails written to them by the Deceiver.

The Initiator saw a clear ethical breach here - it was as clear as day in the e-mails and in the blog itself. He jumped onto this issue but it was misinterpreted as a personal feud and the unethical nature of the Deceiver and his extraordinary capacity to convince others that black was white proved too much. The reason he does this so well is that he deceives himself as well and sees himself as a Knight in Shining Armour.

To illustrate how ethical he actually was, the Deceiver published a complete e-mail he'd been sent by the Initiator and the Initiator called for action on this, just as the Councillor and Quiet Blogger had before him. However, most saw this as just an error - hell, anyone can make an error, right? Kiss and make up.

However, a few astute bloggers saw it more for what it was - a rare lapse revealing true colours and they explored themselves and came to the same conclusion as the Initiator - the Deceiver was unethical. But not being privy to all his e-mails which the Initiator refused to release to his ultimate cost, they could not conclude further.

Seven people rallied to the call altogether but alas, most bloggers were away at the time and missed the show. The stated purpose of the Deceiver - to destroy the Initiator, the only obstacle in his path as he saw it - had been cleverly timed for two days before Christmas.

There were now two issues. The first was the issue of the Deceiver, which was clearly now a lost cause. The second issue was far more serious for the blogosphere:

When the chips are down, bloggers will not support ethical standards because either they're involved at the time in their own projects or else don't have all the data to judge.

If they did, then the Deceiver and the Rattlesnake would have been either drummed out of the blogosphere or would at least have been severely censured.

So, a much chastened Initiator now realized how personal ethics and how mutual support of fellow bloggers in a just cause are of vital importance. It's the old story of the Wolf and the Sheep - the Wolf can pick off the Sheep one by one because the Sheep fail to support one another, except in the proximity of sheer numbers.

The main reason bloggers will not support ethical standards and censure rogue bloggers is the great fear, which even the Initiator shares in full measure, that The Man is trying to remove the freedom of the blogosphere. Most will sign petitions but won't actually rally to support individual instances of quiet, underhanded attacks by the Man, who is cynically clever and knows that people are essentially self-interested.

Of course, occasionally an important person is thus attacked and then the sphere will rally, e.g. over the Usmanov affair. But generally The Man is more subtle than that. Now, while this battle between The Man and The Sphere is going on in one corner, Wolves are happily roaming around The Sphere picking off individual Sheep and no one comes to the rescue - you see, the Wolf wasn't personally attacking them so why buy trouble?

To wind this tale up, it was finally brought home with a jolt to the Initiator that ethical blogging is just a catchphrase when it applies to anything other than our own blog. No one will truly support censure of unethical behaviour against a fellow blogger, such as scurrilous "Testimonials" or the publishing of another man's e-mail.

The Initiator is now both chastened and less idealistic about ethics than before and that's a sadness. Also a sadness is that he has to walk away from the object of his heart for the past year and once again, a bit like in a divorce, go it alone.

Why must he? Well, he can't very well remain, pretending all is well when he's invested so much into the issue of ethics to the point where one of his close friends writes to say he's being a prat and whilst the Deceiver still roams around freely doing his thing.

Did I say alone earlier? Well, not quite alone.

There are a few people who support ethical blogging in real, actual terms - in terms of supporting fellow bloggers under the hammer and while the Initiator's personal position disintegrates and his health deteriorates, he knows that there are indeed certain very good hearts out there and he gives thanks that such people still exist in these increasingly Look After Number One days.

Epilogue [pretend it was a tele-drama]

The Initiator feels he has to now give back to others in some other way, to get off his butt and help and support fellow bloggers, not with fine words of a general nature but from inside himself and the only weapons are the posts on our blogs.

That's what he meant about Ethical Blogging - not regulation of the sphere or prescriptive rules, as The Ornery assumed in his customary but lovable misinterpretation [the Initiator actually hates regulation of the sphere] but instead:

Personal ethics and mutual support at the time when it is needed is vital for our mutual protection in these days when our blogging freedom is increasingly being threatened.

29 comments:

  1. This is an interesting debate.

    It's the perenial problem, however, of how do you deal with the minority who are determined to cause trouble.

    There are some things that can be done but it's doubtful that they would solve all the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes Rob, that's what we're grappling with. Tony said that on our own blogs we maintain our own standards and delete unwelcome comments and that's so.

    However, when an unethical person gets into a group, that's another matter becasue there are sensitivities involved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your last two posts have been very interesting James, it is a difficult matter. I think ultimately we have to stay true to our own ethical and moral standards, and the standards of any groups we choose to join of our own accord.

    This almost like the freedom of speech conundrum in microcosm; nobody has the right not to be offended, but then nobody had the right to tell lies or mislead in order to harm others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James,

    Count me in. I'm not sure what I can do as I sometimes fall into the area of 'It's none of my business' but I like the sound of what you are proposing and would be interested in seeing what you are proposing.

    Personally, I'm stuck for ideas over a way forward with this one. James' quest for truth and justice. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gods! I go to the desert and you people get up to all sorts of nefarious going-ons. I am still on the road and have limited time online but I will read ahead on all I can. You know I support you m'lord - right or wrong. I'm just that sort.

    btw.. I nominate Harrison Ford to play you in the film. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like the ethics and principles of Blog Power. I hope you won't leave or surrender your captaincy. It's true, the group is going through some rough times and a lot more can be improved.

    I'm behind you, whatever you decide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zounds! Perhaps I am missing something here, but I would have thought that an "ethical blogger" wouldn't call other bloggers names or make veiled and potentially hurtful references to them.

    And now we'll never know what happened to Josh and Donna, either ... shame...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Glad I read this post James, it clarified a lot for me and prevented me from slamming off in a huff!

    x

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Welshcakes - how is it "unethical" to take nefarious people to task?

    To call Brown The Disingenuous or Blair The Economical-with-the-Truth may be veiled and hurtful to these two fine gentlemen but it has basis in fact.

    So I scan down the cast of characters to see whom you are referring to. Perhaps you're referring to Ornery? Well he does like to take contrary stands and that seems Ornery.

    But I suspect the one you feel sorry for is the Deceiver, for precisely the reasons I stated in the post - he knows how to cast a spell over the ladies.

    To be unethical it would need to have no basis in fact. But it does, on three counts - the blog, the e-mails, and the published e-mail. On any two of those he should have been out.

    Hurtful, maybe but I'd be hurtful to Hitler, Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, Jacques Chirac - any of them if it meant exposing them.

    That doesn't make it unethical. Wouldn't it be more unethical to directly name the person?

    ReplyDelete
  10. James.
    Let me say before-hand, I am only vaguely aware of the reasons for the last few blogs. I choose not to get involved at these levels.
    However, After all thats passed, I call you a friend.
    Take these comments as coming from one.
    There is a freedom in this technology, and yes that freedom is under drastic attack from centralised powers that wish only to control.
    Thus control is anathema to me.
    The strength of the 'sphere is in its fragmentation.
    If I don't like a place, I don't go there.
    Places open up, places close down.
    Thats the strength of the 'sphere.
    I have been told by more than a few, to get my own blog. I don't want that discipline, so I move as freedom. And in an ever regulated world, that freedom is valuable. I range the world, - something the "States" are most, and increasingly anxious, to suppress.

    Any "coming together" of "like minds" will necessitate rules, obligations (content volume, frequency, content,etc) and I know, as you do, committees never work.

    The current freedom to range the world is exchanging ideas like never before, and educating, like never before. I do not see any improvement on that being achieved by any ethical (or otherwise), content controlled (or otherwise), or whatever other arrangement comes out of the deliberations. It will merely be another blog. To me.

    Most folk are adults, and are, or should be, responsible for their own actions.
    For someone else to take responsibility for other folks actions is taking responsibility a bit too far, and in any event, comes down to a type of control or sanction.
    If a law is being broken, report it, or broadcast it anonymously to avoid legalities.

    Would you be for ever your brothers keeper, and how far does the definition of brother extend, and over what time scale???
    Even a parent has at some point, to back away from responsibility for their children, (much as the idea is difficult)

    You obviously feel you have to do something, and I respect you for that. You show a comprehension few of us are capable of, and an admirable sense of rightness, but, ultimately, responsibility lies with the parties, not you. And they are adults.

    An incident like this will not be solved by some scheme involving complex machinations, it is someones (I guess) personal problems. You hint at admin rules in the background that are not being enforced. Insist they are.

    Well, that's my 2 pence.
    Hope I've read the runes correctly.
    If my reading is incorrect, please ignore.
    If I'm anywhere near the mark, please interpret the above as having the best respect and intent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But, having said that, you are most definitely your own man, and you will do as you will do.
    Respect, friend.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How can you call Blair and Brown, "fine gentlemen"?
    Is that being ornery? (smile)

    ReplyDelete
  13. All good points, Anon and now maybe time to cool it a bit. Still, the idea of a group of the nature described in the next post is certainly getting some attention via e-mail just now.

    Perhaps BP and it can coexist in peace and harmony.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I second Harrison Ford (the young version of course).

    James, have you changed this post since first thing this morning?

    From the little I know I would say that Goodheart didn't act alone and isn't solely responsible.

    I hope you already know my thoughts on the Deceiver.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, you're right, Liz and that's why I did change the post. It was wronging Goodheart and I wanted to be accurate when saying hard things.

    But the hard things are all done now and this blog can now get on to more constructive things.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Goodheart did not ask for the post to be changed although she saw the original and she takes full responsibility for her actions in this matter, uninfluenced by anyone.

    She is her own "man", as always.

    GH

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK, GH - point taken.

    Interestingly, I've just been over to one of the younger girl's blogs [under his influence] because I like her a whole lot.

    She has printed anti-religious tracts twice now and guess what - the first commenter immediately afterwards is the one I called the Deceiver. Pure coincidence?

    Her more rational posts don't have his comments until later. That's the sort of thing I mean. Now it's neither here nor there the anti-religion bit but it's uncanny.

    Also into the inbox thirty minutes ago was an e-mail between two girls, finally realizing he'd put one up to leaving a comment on the other's site. That's also the sort of thing.

    This person is now roaming freely around and no one can stop him.

    I hear loud and clear the voices who say, "Leave it, James. Just let it go. He'll hang himself soon enough."

    That's so but meanwhile, he's blighted a group, taken up inordinate amounts of time I didn't have and why?

    Because I can't bear to see evil masquerading as good and sucking in people I count as friends.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, I think, from what I see, you are the only one worthy of wearing the patch of the knight and carrying the logo on your blog.
    I think it a sin that he posted an email of yours, especially after writing a post how he denounced such unethical behaviour.

    I am heart sick that the integrity of your word, which is unblemished, should not have had the weight attached that it merited.

    I think it a disgrace that The Deceiver was able to fool everyone with his 'professionally gained marketing skills', who don't patronize his blog enough to read the sub text.

    You are a gentleman and a 'knight'.

    XO

    ReplyDelete
  19. Welshcakes, does that mean, according to your comments , after seeing the many humiliating and factually incorrect posts about me at one of your regular haunts, that you would not consider him an 'ethical blogger'?

    ReplyDelete
  20. James I'm struggling- you know perfectly well why people like me did not vote for Crushed by Ingsoc (just for those who don't know, that is whom James is talking about) to be expelled from blogpower. You invited us on trust to expel him- and then because he sent round an email of yours to the internal blogpower list to make the allegation you were a hypocrit. The second allegation I could see as a possible reason for expulsion- but to be honest thought it wasn't there yet. As for the former- I don't know anything about what is happening between Crushed and Ubermouth- I have no clue- I don't to be quite frank care and don't want to know. If there are criminal allegations here- let Ubermouth bring them to a court- if not then its people's private lives and quite frankly none of my or your business- anymore than it would be my business to try and tell you what to do in your private life.

    Last point, I thought there was an agreement on the list that this wouldn't be brought up- a decision had been taken- you withdrew your complaint- to come and insinuate things that you cannot prove and have not proven strikes me as to be acting unethically. I'm sorry James I can't stand with you on this- despite the fact that I think you are a good man and a good blogger- I am tired and typing without restraint which is never good so apologise for any infelicities of language.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Uber leads James in this Gracchi :) look back on the discussions and see the same pattern.

    Seems to me that some people want to start their own group of 'ethical' bloggers and want the 'go ahead' from people they probably won't invite.

    heh ?

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is an interesting post.

    "However, a few astute bloggers saw it more for what it was - a rare lapse revealing true colours and they explored themselves and came to the same conclusion as the Initiator - the Deceiver was unethical. But not being privy to all his e-mails which the Initiator refused to release to his ultimate cost, they could not conclude further.

    Seven people rallied to the call altogether but alas, most bloggers were away at the time and missed the show. The stated purpose of the Deceiver - to destroy the Initiator, the only obstacle in his path as he saw it - had been cleverly timed for two days before Christmas."

    I think I know what you're talking about, but it didn't seem appropriate for me to get involved publicly (or in my blog) because it would have necessarily entailed revealing personal correspondence as well.

    I don't know what the right answer is.... this is a tough one.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ruthie, as you know better than anyone, RL is setting up an infrastructure, in your case for Little C and yourself and your own self-improvement.

    In my case it's a very tentative relationship going on with an important person here plus the governmental work plus uni plus getting the books translated into French and Russian plus keeping enough money up to survive.

    Then comes blogging and as it has some success and people seemed to like it, assumed maybe too much time but it was cathartic getting those things set down "on paper" and for people to actually read them.

    Then came BP, which was a group I loved because the concept was so good but as Tom Paine said, it was a friendly group who came together for mutual support.

    Then came all the other peripheral stuff and lastly, the pressures of an admin but in that you meet with some interesting types. If you look at Verlin Martin's comment above, it's not all that pleasant and that's the sort of thing you get most days from someone.

    There comes a point we're certain people care far more for the fight than for pleasantness, so follow Lord Nazh's advice here and follow the pattern - it's of me slowly withdrawing from a pointless fight over a very nasty individual indeed.

    The temptation to print excerpts from the e-mails is overwhelming but I flatly refuse to betray the three women. One is well known but the other two have not given any permission - their purpose was to show me what he was up to I think.

    I just don't like men who prey on women but that's a sweeping term. Every time we go near one we could call that "preying". I spent New Year with a former love who came back. I don't see former lovers sending e-mails about me to another man hoping he'll do something about me.

    In the end I failed those women because I couldn't use the material. That's all there was to it. Now they'll need to find another to champion their cause.
    Lord Nazh needs to think it through - who would be more likely to want to destroy me, Ms Swan or Ingsoc?

    She is no fool and knew what it would do and even wrote about that but I know wrong when I see it and what he was doing was wrong, is wrong. Far from carrying on obsessed, I stepped back and asked what a blog was for anyway.

    Seemed to me that it was for the types of things everyone sees on my blog - against the cabals, against corruption in high places - I mean, that's my "thing" anyway so why shouldn't I pursue this thing?

    I'm no saint at all and you know my views on feminism and I think, for example, that Mike Tyson was wrongly imprisoned, that it wasn't rape in a technical sense at all so I'm not "all for women". But I am "all for victims" if enough of them bring it to my attention.

    One aspect I never wrote on so I can hardly expect any sympathy on it is that I feel so sorry for The Deceiver. He wrote me last evening and I wrote back saying it wasn't him himself - he was in the grip of this thing he was doing.

    He scoffed. So fine, we're big boys and girls, we win some, we lose some. I've lost out and now it's time to pick up the pieces and run with them.

    This will largely be the substance of a post on the question of my resigning from BP which will come later but now it's work time and a client is coming in one hour.

    Incidentally, lovely to see you over here, Ruthie and you, Gracchi and Verlin, not forgetting the guys before that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Having read this post yesterday morning, I did what I mostly do: Not commenting spontaneously.
    Right now reading the comments, again there are humming many bees in my head. Still, I need - and do want - to engross my thoughts.

    This to just let you know that I follow(ed) the discussion, but these days and nights do need almost each of my remaining grey cells for a project that does not bear any delay.
    A pleasant and peaceful weekend to all of you. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would like to coment to Verlin Martin ,who does not know me, that you do NOT know the situation accurately to raise such an accusation.
    I have no desire to join any group and am not sure if I will even continue to blog at all after the horrific and illegal exp I went through with The deceiver.
    Yes, I did come to James to discuss concerns for the safety of all female bloggers.
    When you have spoken to him nightly, a family member of his and his flat mate THEN you can come and tell me your more learned opinion of him which MAY exceed my well formed one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Uber:

    I don't give a flying fu$# what you do with your blogging career. How's that for you?

    I know more than I want to know about this, more than should be KNOWN by someone a thousand miles away probably. You can cry about it, CBI can cry about it; heck you can get friends to cry about it; but it would be better if you would solve it instead of dragging it into public constantly.

    Just because you don't recognize who you are speaking to, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. ooo eeer

    inaccurate testimonials? Moi?

    I hope not.

    Besides which I'm too fat to be a rattlesnake.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A bit late in the day, but oh well...
    Verlin, if you do not have any interest in my blogging career( which pleases me no end) then refrain from making sweeping and incorrect statements and projecting motives I do not have.

    Also, as The deceiver tends to use his blog to humiliate and degrade other bloggers then it is relevant in the community.
    Also, I have actually said very little on the subject. It was not I who brought this mess out into the open.
    So, when ill informed- keep mum, eh?

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.