NYT on Journalist Blogs
The New York Times looks at a few of the pitfalls of reporters who blog. They talk to the Houston Chronicle reporter who was fired for his work-related blog and a J-school prof who says if he was a media attorney, “the idea of a Web log like this would just make me break out in hives.” (Though they don’t mention LA reporter Ron Fineman who said he was recently fired for his site.)

The story is fine, but it doesn’t really tackle the big issue -- should they blog?

I don’t think there’s an easy answer to the question yet. As a former copy editor and desk editor, I want to say Good God, NO! There are some reporters who are really bad. They are lazy, sloppy and sometimes deceptive. There is a reason newspapers and magazines employ copy editors and desk editors – one is to stop the reporters from getting things wrong or getting the paper sued. There was one reporter I know who was notorious for not doing enough reporting to back up his lede and it was almost like a game to figure out the hidden flaw on the story (usually an awkwardly phrased sentence that the reporter was adamant could not be changed.) If you asked enough questions, you would find out the lede was unsupported, and sometimes the entire premise of the story was wrong. As I copy editor, I would have gone nuts if that reporter was going home and blogged the stuff we cut out of the paper for good reason. Because for readers, that reporter’s work would still reflect the newsroom.

Let’s say Tom Friedman had a blog. If someone wanted to sue him for libel for something on his blog, I can’t imagine the NYT would not be named in that suit. So yes, news companies should pay attention.

What about free speech? Many news organizations already have limits on reporters’ freedoms. Some prohibit you from signing any type of petition. Some limit what types of organizations you can join, or when (or if) you can trade stocks. Plenty have rules about freelancing for other publications, so there would be nothing new about prohibiting blogs.

What about an in-house blog? Fine, but I think it should still run through the regular editing process.

Fundamentally, the reporters who blog question gets down to the issue: Should reporters have opinions? Some people think they should not. Some think it’s fine as long as they ultimately write a balanced story. But if I’ve been on my blog yammering about the problems with the death penalty, should I be covering a death penalty trial for a straight news story? Anyone I talk to will accuse me of having pre-conceived ideas and say I therefore didn't get in all the points of the people I disagree with. (Then again there's a larger issue of the reporters who have strong opinions on a topic they write about, but don't publish their opinions. Is that better or worse than the reporter who does publish their opinion. Discuss.)

The reality of it is that many reporters really want to be columnists, and most reporters have harbored thoughts of seeing their editor vaporized – so of course blogs seem like a dream. Take this post after all. I’ve had two cups of coffee, no food and maybe no real coherence in what I’ve written. But I can still post it.

And one other thought. This blog vs. work issue isn’t limited to journalists. I know a handful of bloggers who started blogging and then stopped – realizing there might be work implications if their boss or clients happen on the site and find out about their personal opinions. In February, a Los Angeles woman said she was fired for her blog (“Essentially, they explained, they didn't like what I had expressed on my website. I got fired because of dooce.com.”) There are repercussions to this and as much as you want them not to exist – they do. Drudge got sued, remember folks? There will be more, guaranteed.
- posted by Amy @ 9/23/2002 10:08:00 AM