Bloggers ignore the rules of journalism
Ethics is just a county in England
THE OLD DAYS when journalists and newspaper policy decided who got themselves named and shamed are a thing of the past, thanks to blogging.
According to the Online Journalism Review, it is becoming harder for hacks, for what ever reason, to keep names suppressed.
Bloggers are uncovering all the holes left in copy by hacks and printing them on their sites.
The article cites the case where a newspaper decided to suppress the name of a woman who pretended to be a teen boy on Myspace and insulted teen Megan Meier. Maier subsequently killed herself.
A local paper, the St. Charles Journal, told the yarn about how the woman was the mother of a former friend of Meier's. Apparently, she went on the social networking site to protect her daughter from what she thought was bullying from Meier.
The paper refused to name and shame the mother. Bloggers on the other hand had no such compulsion and went into over-drive to find the woman and out her.
A blogger called Jezebel soon uncovered the woman's name, address, phone number and business registration records and plastered them all over the Web.
Of course this will not work where a court has ordered the suppression of a name. It would be a brave blogger who tries to go against a wigged one and a court order.
The OJR said that it was once possible for a hack to decide whether something should be made public on the basis that it might stop a local lynch mob. Now, it seems that hacks have to name and shame or risk inflaming the lynch mob even further. µ
Comments
Just leave the jurisdiction
Bloggers outside the country where a court order exists regularly flaunt "wigged ones". In some court cases in Canada where a publication ban of ALL evidence was in place, bloggers in the US happily blogged away each and every detail as it was covered int he courthouse.rules4u
Perhaps if journos had not decided to simply act as the propaganda arm of their government they would not have to worry about bloggers. The public is gullible but not so gullible that they don't know what whores journalists are.Rules of Journalism. Hah.
Rule 1: Repeat, ad nauseum, everything your government leaders say.
Rule 2: If you get stuck for words just transcribe the press release.
Rule 3: You are objective, never forget that. No matter what peace groups, environmentalists and other such misbegotten ilk try to foist on us in their rabid diatribes. Our noble government and industry leaders have stated clearly and vigorously that we uphold the rights of freedom of speech for all.
Confidentiality is for pussies
And it's preceded the blogs quite a long way, at least regarding Canada.. do a search on Paul Bernardo and Usenet sometime...Re: rules of journalism
What this family did to Megan Meier is beyond comprehension and certainly not normal behavior. The mother's lack of remorse, clearly shows Sociopathic tendencies. Her and her family devised a plan, gained her trust, and systematically set about to damage this girls self-esteem and psyche. The Meier's have valialiantly kept quiet for a year, and suffered in silence. It is justice that the world now knows what happened to Megan Meier. Victims deserve anonymity, perpetrators do not.Protection for women, but not men
The woman's name was kept secret by a judiciary committed to providing special rights for women, and journalists willingly collaborate. If the perpetrator had actually been a boy, or a man pretending to be one, his name would have made headlines.Bloggers provide the information that those "responsible" refuse to provide.
What rule of journalism?
What rule was allegedly broken? You do not state one. You just say that newspapers' policies should dictate whether adult non-criminals should be named in a paper. The St. Louis paper decided not to name then, Jezebel decided to name them. The FBI and county have declined to prosecute, so there are no criminal charges. These Drew people got to hide behind a computer and do despicable things and Jezebel and other decided not to let them hide any more. What's wrong with that?In the US at least, it is actually NOTEWORTHY that the paper refused to name the Drews. That goes against US journalistic standards. The only people not named are juveniles, victims of sexual crimes, and confidential government sources. The Drews do not fit in any of these categories. If the Drews did not want to be named, then perhaps they should have thought about that before they harrassed a little 13-year-old girl. And then admitted to the parents of the dead girl that 1.) they did it and 2.) don't feel very bad about it.
Check your sources!
That particular website (Jezebel) did NOT give the name/address/phone number. They gave the name after other sources had already.AND, the mother harassed Meier NOT because she thought that Meier was taunting her own daughter. She did it out of spite because the two girls used to be friends and the mom wanted to get some dirt. A grown woman posed as a teenage boy. Then she started calling Megan a slut, which bummed out the poor kid.
Your article conveys the chain of events totally differently.
Actually ....
Actually, it was NOT Jezebel that first uncovered the identity of the Drews.If you're going to rant on about journalism gone awry, I'd check my own facts first -- oh, and make sure that international libel policy is up to date -- if I were you.
Bloggers ignore the rules of journalism
bloggers aren't journalists, allthough they might think they are.they're just a bunch of lonely, sad people who think other people are interested in their boring daily lives and their opinions.
we're not.
they hope against all hope that a major publication will notice them and give them a real job.
they won't.
bloggers are not journalists.
Bad Blogger!
Here's an example of this kind of gonzo journalsim:http://dave-lucas.blogspot.com/2007/11/megan-josh.html
Don't Blame Blogging
Long before the internet, newspapers and tabloids engaged in this behavior.Outing a source has gone almost all the way back to Guttenburg and the invention of the press.
Abraham Lincoln got outed for insulting letters he wrote to newspapers, and people challenged him to duels over it. Don't blame blogging.
Blame the people who commit atrocious behavior that gets them into the news in the first place.
Megan Meier and the Hypocritical Media
The naming of Lori Drew has sparked quite a debate indeed. Some major news outlets have chosen to name the perpetrator(s) behind this story such as the New York Times. Some have chosen not to. The mainstream media however has concluded that the blogging community should shoulder the responsibility of first naming the perpetrator behind this story.The first question I have in this debate is simple. What is new here? Since before the French Revolution, the media has been used to 'out' individuals who's actions seem to bear public relevancy in some way.
Although Lori Drew has not yet been charged in the case of Megan Meier, the media has never required formal charges to be made before running a story. In the case of some journalist like Dan Rather, some media outlets run with stories before even confirming that they're true.
In this particular case, media outlets that have chosen to withhold Lori Drew's identity have done so in consideration of other Drew family members.
I'm wondering if by doing this, the media plans to always withhold the names of interesting persons who outrage the community, if those persons have children. This would certainly be quite a ground-breaking event
Right at this moment, there is a story of a cop who is under investigation in the strange death of one wife and the disappearance of another. The cop in the story has a family, yet the media huddles outside his home relentlessly.
I could go back and list thousands of stories where the media wasted no time in delivering the names and occupations of individuals that were later cleared of any wrong-doing. I've never heard of another instance where the media apologized for naming names.
Don Henley's 'Dirty Laundry' certainly applies well to conduct of most major news outlets.
Lori Drew is a primary subject of the story, she is not a rape victim, and is not a minor. Identifying her breaks no new ground, nor does it deviate from what news outlets do on a daily basis.
I also remind readers that her name and her role in the Megan Meier tragedy were documented as public record. A public record that Lori filed on her own accord. This is a critically important fact in this debate.
News outlets, bloggers and the general public were handed Lori's name and Lori's own self admissions when she herself filed that police report and sought to elevate the entire situation into the public domain.
Had Lori Drew simply acknowledged what she did was wrong, and apologized - the police report that identified her may have never been filed, and the entire situation may have well been kept at the lowest profile.
Will we see the media write about this? Not likely.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Day in court
Who the hell wrote this blog?I think its interesting how some of the news outlets were refusing to print Lori Drew's name, even though she'd already confessed and tried to shrug it off as unimportant, despite Meier's suicide. Now that she's under inditement, they HAVE to print it. Hahaha..