The Wall Street Journal has an article today asking if newspapers should sponsor reporters' blogs. So, let's address what was said.
WSJ takes example of Matt Marshall, whose blog SiliconBeat, is sponsored by the Mercury News, where he is a reporter. Matt used his blog to raise questions about rumours of the Microsoft acquisition of Claria, a topic he was also covering as part of his regular beat. The only difference was that Matt could say just about anything he wanted on his blog, without an official review from an editor. He could raise points and facts that could not be brought to light in traditional press.
"I could definitely see how in journalism circles people could look at what we do and be a little bit nervous," Mr. Bazeley says. But "when we sit down to write news stories, we put on a totally different hat."
SiliconBeat (www.siliconbeat.com) and other blogs like it represent a departure from the just-the-facts tradition of mainstream news reporting... To date, it is relatively rare for newspapers to sponsor reporter-written blogs.
Why is it rare? For a newspaper to sponsor a blog of this sort, it would have to be o.k. with bias, opinions, and a whole range of commentary. A newspaper is traditionally thought of as non-partisan press - unbiased reporting. Although the owners of the press, the reporters themselves and other factors influence the selection and coverage of news in subtle ways making them partisan to some degree, it is rare for the opinions to be overt or controversial.
Blogs are a podium for opinion and commentary and are thus ripe with what can be called bias. Given that, should a newspaper still support these blogs? I think so. I think one point to be made here is the role of editor in the blogosphere is not completely absent. Comments and trackbacks serve some purpose to this end. Although each of us can get up on our own podium and say what we choose, if we are far out there, plain wrong, or sorely opinionated we will get people commenting. And, though not creating the neutrality an editor might (or should) impose, it does give a more well-rounded view of things. Information omitted from news, links, hot news, and research can all go on the blog where any number of people can add depth to it through their own blogging.
Ok, so blogs can add depth to reported news and the worry of bias can be somewhat dampened by the role of the blogosphere. However, there are still strong concerns surrounding reporting liability. The newspaper would be responsible for libel charges originating on the blogs of their reporters. And yet, these concerns can be alleviated with some simple blogging boundaries.
Any company, publisher or not, should set some boundaries for their bloggers. Outline what can and cannot be said. Without restricting voice or commentary, this offers security over many liability issues. It ensures private information remains private and that bloggers are aware of what they can say and the consequences of going outside those rules - yes, even being fired. Sun has a great policy which many companies now follow. I would suggest the same for newspapers.
Although I support consequences for stepping over the line when blogging, even so far as being fired if justified, I am adamantly against bloggers getting fired for blogging "on the side." Think of it this way - if your employee is blogging on the side, for free, they are not only building up their own reputation, but yours. I'd recommend supporting that.
I applaud those newspapers such who support the blogging efforts of their reporters. I'd like to see more of this old meets new media merging.
Technorati Tags: wsj, blogging, journalism
