News on the net, especially blogs, is ushering in a new brand of ethics, according to a group of American editors and commentators who attended a Reuters Newsmaker event in the States. Well, after reading reports of what they said, and what we already know about net content, it appears that some material is completely ethics-free, as are the posters of course. The old media rules - and legal contraints - do not seem to apply.
It means that supposedly "inappropriate" stories that US newspapers and broadcasters dare not touch are appearing on gossip sites and blogs. The same may be true in Britain, though our tabloids are far more daring than those in the States. Even so, Guido Fawkes has pushed further still at the boundaries in political reporting while the newsletter I receive weekly from Popbitch certainly takes celebrity gossip into very risky areas indeed.
The story that has exercised the States in recent weeks concerns former Republican congressman Mark Foley, who sent improper emails to male congressional pages. According to the Reuters panellists - who included Star magazine editor Bonnie Fuller, the editor of Slate.com, Jacob Weisberg, and political commentator Hilary Rosen - this was an example of a story being blown out of proportion due to the net. But I read lots about Foley in newsprint form too. Can that be right?
And consider this contribution from Weisberg: "I very much agree that we need to have standards, but I think that in practical terms, we don't control what people find out anymore." True enough. But then said something about media outlets finding it harder to protect the privacy of the politicians and stars they cover without losing scoops to blogs and other competitors. I'm not quite certain what he actually means. It implies that we journalists are in the business of protecting privacy unless it's us who are writing the scoops that intrude on that privacy. Very confused stuff.
Perhaps the Foley case shows what Weisberg means. Mainstream media journalists did not report on his homosexuality, though they knew about it, not even when he opposed the legalisation of gay marriages and took other political stances seemingly at odds with gay and lesbian rights groups. I guess that's fair enough, though I'm surprised the contradiction was not a matter for press comment at the time. But his sexual preference did become an issue once his improper messages to young men were revealed. As far as I'm concerned, that's definitely a revelation that deserved to be reported. But the panellists seem to think that bloggers were wrong to highlight the issue. How crazy is that?
Of course, at that point, it was right to bring it to public attention and unsurprising that bloggers criticised what they considered to be previous press silence on the matter. Rosen missed that point altogether by saying: "I think it's fair game to press people on it. Whether or not it's fair game to publish it everywhere and call them hypocrites and out them, I think, is different." Excuse me? The man was sending inappropriate messages and, in so doing, outing him was surely proportionate to the "crime".
The truth is that the old media élite is finding it uncomfortable to have "outsiders" encroaching on their turf. Suddenly they find that the people want to know more and don't respect the old, informal rules of behaviour. I can't decide whether it's unethical or not. There will be examples where bloggers overstep the mark - as traditional "professional" journalists do too, do they not? - but the Foley case is hardly a good one on which to defend old practices.
