Thursday, January 03, 2008

[ethical bloggers] the increasing necessity in the sphere

Pride in one's blog must have some basis

Somewhere a line has to be drawn in the sand.

There's been a bit of a discussion in recent times about ethics in blogging - what's acceptable and what's not. Of course we're not referring to political views as such, fisking or how risque one's language is but more to the ethical basis underlying someone's blog.

There are blogs like, say, Dizzy or Croydonian whose views you might attack and who might be accused of bias this way or that but what you can't attack is their ethical desire to check basic facts, to back up their statements and to be more middle of the road in outlook. Wat Tyler is a case in point here.

I mean they don't use their blog as a front for holocaust deniers or to recruit girls to some apocalyptic nirvana a la Jim Jones or to push anorexia, push porn or promote shaitan - they're solid, not off their brain and by no means boring.

They're not sordid, foul-mouthed bloggers who write in anatomical detail of their last sexual encounter although the occasional F word might be used for emphasis.

They don't steal other people's photos or fail to attribute quotes. They remain inexorably ladies and gentlemen in their most scathing attacks.

An ethical blogger

Then we come down, not just to ethical underpinning but to sheer good writing as well. Some blogs are, quite simply, excellent reads. Not all the time but mostly. Plus they're consistent in output, varied enough and tweak the layout and format from time to time - not all the time, mind. One gets the feeling each time one visits that the author always wishes to improve.

They have some personal ethics - for example they'd not "out" a fellow blogger they disagree with nor publish a private e-mail on a public mailing list in order to win an argument, expecting the matter would be just glossed over by a vaccilating admin.

Every blogging association on the web would like to contain just such bloggers who command respect - such as Pajamas Media and the like. But there's also a place for a small, select group for whom ethics is the underpinning plus the simple ability to write.

This group would be known for it's jealously guarded logo and the need to perform and perform well to remain a member, just as the players in any premier league club. The group name needs to stand for something in the sphere - a long process and one where the sphere needs to begrudgingly [at first] accord it respect and finally the name becomes synonymous with quality.

Another ethical blogger

They can be small bloggers whose improvement has been quite marked and looks like it will continue - blogs like Sicily Scene, for example or established objects of respect like the Political Umpire.

Such a group of bloggers would form only by invitation, there'd be a most democratic process because any such blogger would be, by definition, a highly independent thinker and therefore virtually "unclubbable". The problem is that the setting up of such a group presupposes that the initiators see themselves as acceptable for membership in the first place [Groucho Marx Catch 22].

The inexorable push by authority to regulate and vet blogposts is gathering momentum and is only fuelled by low quality blogs with low quality ethics. Authorities need only point to such blogs and say, "See, he's a member of your group." You'd be tainted by the same stigma and so it's vital that when the push comes from above, you can hold your head up high and say, "Well I'm a member of Ethical Bloggers".

Some group has to set the standard.

A number of bloggers have been thinking along these lines in the light of recent events and have expressed a desire to set up some sort of association or cooperative which we could temporarily refer to as Ethical Bloggers, as a working title. Such an association would take up any ethical issue raised and stand by its ethos; it would quietly act on breaches instead of turning the messenger into the villain and trying to sweep the issue under the carpet.

Would the greatest blogger in the UK be admitted?

But more importantly, issues would be hardly likely to arise in the first place because of the stringent entry requirements. Like anything of value, such a thing would take some setting up and would not be easy - nothing of any quality does come easily.

20 comments:

  1. As usual a good post. Perhaps instead of a group you could have a kitemark type logo that you can dispence but still own and remove if necessary. After all people change.

    Groups can build little cliques and if responsible for policing their own they are not 100% reliable as each have their own views and they can get blinded by friendship.

    Only other issue I see is that like everything in life ethics can differ between people. You will need to define them. Basic ethics are standard but I think you are looking at more than that.

    I'd like to think I'm an ethical blogger, my standards, but you have different morals from me and might not think I meet your high expectations.

    I'll watch this with interest. I've not seen any big issues but clearly I don't hang about the right places. Sadly no sign of porn blogs on my blogroll. I must be too fussy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the compliment. I think bag raises some good points here. I am giving the issue some thought.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting post / idea to ponder, James, plus good remarks by Bag. Like Welsh I shall be giving the issue some thought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A very interesting post, Bretwalda. You've been doing some deep thinking while you've been away.

    As the most ethical of all bloggers, I'm happy to endorse you campaign and to provide muscle on the door to eject troublemakers and break kneecaps should the need arise. However, before I commit myself more fully, I wonder how clear we are on what constitutes an ethical blog.

    Where, for example, do you stand on the use of bad language? Beyond porn, gun fetishism, and Youtube videos involving hammers and kittens, I find that foul language is the single thing that I find disappointing about blogs and bloggers. Yet is this a question of morality, ethics, or simply personal taste? I’m far from being a prude but I get so tired of the constant stream of foul mouthed dullness that I come across every day. It’s almost as bad in comments. I wouldn’t walk into a room and start swearing to strangers but strangers will happily leave comments in the most unsavoury language. Except for a few notable exceptions (who would be improved if they could cut most of it out), most foul-mouthed blogs are content free.

    Yet as I say all this, I think to myself: who am I to judge? And that’s where I find myself falling in line behind you. It is about drawing a line in the sand. In an ideal world, blogging ethics should be down to the individual and we would all choose to be intelligent, witty, friendly, compassionate, original, etc. Unfortunately, I think blogs get a bad name because so many people adopt the easiest route, copying what they see as successful elsewhere. They are aggressive, rude, controversial, vitriolic, sensationalist, misogynistic, repetitive… Perhaps, therefore, it’s not even about blog ethics (which is a touchy concept), as much as it’s about blog excellence. Aesthetics and morality are perhaps not that far apart and we should simply support the bloggers who we can see working hard to improve their corners of the blogosphere .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Spontaneous com(pli)ment for Richard Madeley: Chapeau!

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oops. Think I'll quietly slide under a stone. Bad language occasionally being my thing, that is.

    Sorry chaps, does that makes me unethical then?

    And I thought we were having such a laugh. Obviously erudite wins the day, so that's me done for.

    Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Swearing Mother, exactly my point. I don't consider bad language to be bad as such. I do however tone it down on my blog because I personally don't like swearing in front of women.

    However if it is in the definitions then there will be a lot of ethical and moral people who don't qualify.

    As an example I consider DK to be an essential read. His blog raised and defines some very pertinent points and he meets, imo, a very high standard of ethics and morals. (If we ignore his Apple fetish which is clearly disturbing). Yet no one who looks at his blog could see him passing any swear test no matter how lenient.

    So we now have your Fred West person with no logo and DK with no logo. How do we tell them apart? Is DK to be viewed the same? Hopefully not but how will the ordinary punter tell them apart?

    The more i think about it the more I see it being fraught with problems. Yet, I have the greatest respect for you James and suspect that you feel it is the right thing to do. I'll help if I can but think it will be a losing battle.

    Apologies to DK and Fred West who are used as examples. Clearly with DK gaining the most of that apology.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well said, James. I agree entirely with you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To be fair to Bag and others who don't really know what brought this on, it was not so much swearing or any of that but someone who published another blogger's e-mail whole to support an argument he was making and then the matter was smoothed and hushed up rather than the blogger who did it being booted out of the blogosphere as he should have been.

    It was an incredible situation where the victim was actually told when he objected vociferously that he was causing trouble and very few people supported him but tacitly supported the perpetrator.

    That and something happening a few days back totally lost me. Hence the call for ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Prescriptive control, a dangerous road

    ReplyDelete
  12. When I read James' posting I was immediately reminded of the Tim O'Reilly plan to turn sheriff and hand out "Civility Enforced" code of conduct badges to good little blogging boys and girls.

    Although I recognise James' intentions are good, I do not think a group is required to uphold ethics. Surely any blogger worth their salt should be posting in a way that is ethical and moderating comments that offer nothing but abuse.

    Low quality, low ethics blogs will fall apart or remain the preserve of that curious breed who get some kind of satisfaction from hurling insults and acting like demented keyboard warriors. I just do not see the need for a group based on ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You cannot think for yourself anymore, James and the 'ethicals' are here to do it for you.

    You are the last person I'd think to see selling out freedom for rules and regulations; especially after BP went ape over the thing this summer to do with freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's understandable thaqt with only part of the story told, people should interpret this as a call for regulation. It's actually the opposite. Next post will explain.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just wondering, has some kind of code of ethics been written somewhere about blogging? If not, would be good if Nourishing Obscurity could come up with a set standard of some kind, don't you think?

    Great post. Congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Maybe you should look at the following post, Ellee.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "rather than the blogger who did it being booted out of the blogosphere as he should have been"

    you do realize when you send someone email, it is THEIRS and not yours after that right? :)

    ReplyDelete

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