Friday, May 26, 2006

ABC blogging, bloody cheek

The ABC revelations of an FBI investigation into House Speaker Dennis Hastert
raise serious issues in the journalism and blogging spheres.

The ABC and the rest of the big media players might run close to the margin
at times, to break a hot story, but they operate under a defined legal and ethical
regime.

They not only have vast resources to validate reports, they have a serious
responsibility to use those recourses honestly and transparently.

The ABC and other news organizations have every right to use the blog format
as part of their overall presentation. To use the blog to float a dodgy story
is unethical and misleading.

Of course it could be that they see blogging as a free for all, but they have
a boody cheek, joining in and adding to that perception

Tickled as I was by the Hastert revelation, something held me back from running amok
with it. The story didn’t appear in the mainstream of the ABC's site, but
on what passes for a media blog.

There is a world of difference between a large media organization and the average
web log owner.

I can, as a blogger, tell the world that I think Hastert is a first rate arsehole;
it’s my opinion worth nothing more nor less than that. I can suggest that
the FBI are probably going through Hastert garbage cans as we speak; again, that
is my opinion, for what it is worth.

If I should ever be so fortunate to have a reliable source (even a dodgy source
would do) close the action, I could blog that ‘I have heard reports that…”
or if I was fairly certain, go the whole ABC route and declare that the FBI
were investigating Hastert.

But I am not a major news organization, I don't have sources. My blog is 'my' personal outlet, my means of communicating my understanding and opinions.

As a blogger I could report breathlessly that the President has been caught
in a compromising position with his dog. I would soon gain a reputation, but
not the one I would prefer.

Of course there is always the compliment paid by a major news network joining
the ranks of bloggers. It obviously means that despite their greater resources,
access to a PC has made us simple folk competitive at last.



5 comments:

Reality-Based Educator said...

Hastert says he's going to sue if ABC does not formally retract. So far, no retraction. Heckuva standoff.

Cartledge said...

And have a peice of the FBI. It's been badly handled, whatever the truth.
Hastert says they are trying to flush him, which suggests he knows his own nature.

Reality-Based Educator said...

I'm probably going to regret this, but I actually believe Hastert on this. The Abramoff report on him isn't new, actually, so whoever leaked that the Feds are looking at him closely wanted it out as a reaction to something he's been doing lately - namely pushing back on the Feds for their jackboot raid on Jefferson's office.

I hope Hastert/Pelosi win this one - allowing the executive to send it's jackboots up to Congress any time it wants to look for "criminal evidence" is a bad precedent (especially since it has never happened in 200+ years of American history.) While William Jefferson is definitely dirty, some unscrupulous future chief executive (or even the current unscrupulous one) may use the jackboot precedent for nefarious ends.

Praguetwin said...

I figure anyone who is crying foul over the searching of Jefferson's office is probably dirty (and scared shitless).

Cartledge said...

I'm inclined to believe the shifty bastards are guilty of something.
I think the ABC was caught out in a feeding frenzy.
As a reporter, I was never shy of gilding the lily, but there had to be a lily to guild, if you follow.
The ABC knew they didn’t have enough, which is why the strange reporting method.
I truly believe that house leaders are making a big mistake crying foul and Bush shows his poor leadership by folding to it.
The people will slowly realize that they are being told there are two sets of laws in the US; one for the powerful, the other for the rest of you.
There can only be one law for everyone, and even if it is draconian it must apply across all spheres.
RBE, there was something not right about this from the start. Innocent or guilty? I’m not sure that is the issue. And I suspect Washington is scared shitless for many reasons now, all the more reason to get it right.
Now that saves me posting the angry, epithet laden blog I wrote late last night.