Last night I tuned in to an interactive podcast / discussion (The No Behaviour Show) centered around online activity in the Trinidad Guardian, and there was a riveting session on whether or not one of the key things (possibly) undermining the credibility of journalist-bloggers is an absence of a specific code of ethics governing their writing / reporting.
One person opined that there is really no specific code of ethics that can govern any type of reporting, basically, "you should know when you doing nonsense" and that should be your guide.
Now this is not a new topic; the question about a code of ethics for bloggers has been debated in many circles. And I was originally one of those incensed at the thought of monitoring or censoring the ability of bloggers to go outside of traditional media and freely speak about topics which were (are) untouched by traditional media. And I was of the belief that most of us are ruled by an unspoken set of principles when it comes to what we write on our blogs--even without the presence of an editor, as a newspaper journalist would have. But I'm now sadly aware that that's not the case.
So I'm thinking maybe a specific set of ethical guidelines and surveillance--where blog content is monitored, and bloggers are penalized for infractions--can't hurt. And I don't necessarily like Google's largely secretive, overseer approach, but for now it works as a deterrent for flagrant offenders.
What you think?
