The Ethics of Citizen Journalism, Pt. 2

Jay Rosen says my argument that the Huffington Post and its sister site, Off The Bus, ought to hold their unpaid contributors to certain accepted standards of journalism illustrates the "guild mentality in the press." Does it now?

I've never thought of myself as much of a guild man. I didn't go to J-school, or even take J-classes, and I've spent most of my career working in the Wild West of the Internet, not in stodgy old media. Moreover, I'm perfectly comfortable with many of the conventions of blog journalism, such as crowd-sourced reporting and writing that blends fact with opinion.

In fact, while Rosen says I misrepresented his meaning (and I did truncate a bit too much -- see his comment here), I think he misunderstood mine. I never said Huffpo must obey and enforce the Marquis of Queenbury rules of journalism. But it is in their interest to observe some of the niceties. Much as the site claims to disdain the access-based Beltway news paradigm, it does seek access, whether in the form of an exclusive statement from Barack Obama, an interview with Dan Rather or invitations to cover events. (How many Huffpo reporters did I see at the Time 100, again?) Hell, Huffpo was founded on access -- Arianna Huffington's access to the bold-faced names who blog for her.

As it increasingly adopts the trappings of a conventional news organization, then, Huffpo becomes subject to the same kind of reprisals as a conventional news organization. Some fly-by-night blogger with nothing to lose is free to practice guerilla journalism -- secretly recording people, getting into events on false pretenses, etc. -- and maybe the information he generates thereby will be a valuable contribution to the sum of our knowledge. But Huffpo doesn't have that luxury. The gate-keepers it deals with are under no obligation to respect Huffpo's internal distinction between professional reporters and amateur "contributors."

But don't take my word for it. Clearly Mayhill Fowler knew that identifying herself to Bill Clinton was the correct thing to do -- why else was she planning to show him her business card? Her ultimate decision not to tell him she was there on behalf of Off The Bus had nothing to do with the changing conventions of digital journalism. It was pure expediency.

Update, 3:22 p.m.: And, as usual, Felix Salmon disagrees. He says he's "puzzled" by my arguments. Well, I'm puzzled by his puzzlement. Why can't disclosing one's affiliation be both ethical and expedient? What's so restrictive about asking that people who plan to quote your words tell you so before recording them?

It's easy to see why a journalist, citizen or professional, might be tempted to do otherwise. You will certainly forfeit the occasional juicy, unguarded quote by IDing yourself as a reporter.

But not telling someone that they're being interviewed is a short-term strategy. It only works once. For someone like Mayhill Fowler, who seems to be making a hobby if not a second career of playing journalist, it's ultimately more fruitful to be upfront with her subjects. Yes, she'll sacrifice some unguarded utterances, but the people who do talk to her will be willing to talk to her again -- and to her colleagues -- next time she sticks a microphone in their faces. It's the same reason every reporter knows it's not a good idea to break an agreement to keep something off the record: It's bad ethics and bad practice.

Here's a question for you, Felix: Since Fowler's method has been so successful, what's to stop Jay Rosen from sending out an email to all Off The Bus contributors instructing them not to introduce themselves as bloggers, and perhaps suggesting that they wear concealed microphones? Or do you feel he should do just that in the interest of cultivating "[m]ore sources, more voices, more opinion, more debate"?