Friday, February 04, 2005

Giving Credit Where Due

As an historian-in-training, I have learned the mechanics of proper, scholarly citation. As a blogger, I have yet to perfect a consistent method of choosing which words to use as a link to a story or where to give a nod to those from whom I got the link. My general observation is that the blogosphere is much more lax than it should be in crediting the source from which they were tipped off to a post or story, though I think it's getting better. (Besides, it's something that one figures out eventually: newbies should get a pass for a while). In this vein, Patrick Ruffini points out that the MSM, who should know better, isn't doing a good job of properly citing their blog sources
The Globe takes the White House to task for not distinguishing between conservative and "non-partisan" media. But the Globe does the same in its article, failing to disclose which "Internet bloggers" are fueling the story -- (cough)Hatrios(cough)Kos(cough) -- and any hint of which political party they might be associated with.

With all the discussion about policing the blogosphere, shouldn't there be a journalistic code of ethics for how the blogosphere's work is cited? The Globe glosses over its sourcing by noting that "issue was raised by a media watchdog group and picked up by Internet bloggers" -- which is a euphemism for "I didn't do any original reporting on this. I just cribbed it from Atrios, Daily Kos, and David Brock."

Why would the Globe be hesitant to provide hyperlinks to the two or three key blogs that brought the story to public attention, or mention their names in its print edition? Is it because disclosing what blogs Globe reporters actually read in their spare time might reflect poorly on the credibility of the story?
(via Instapundit) <-----that's how it's done!

No comments: