« Harrison Ford and Shia Le Boef Need Prop | Home | Claremonsters No Fans of Weed Vending »
Blogging Ethics: A Hypothetical Question
By Robert C.J. Parry | May 13, 2008
I’d like to indulge you in a bit of community dialogue regarding a question of ethics in the Blogosphere. It is especially relevant to a blog that deals in local and very local matters.
Imagine a prominent public official made a public assertion to support a certain point of view. That assertion regards a particular but unnamed individual. Now imagine that you come across of piece of information about that individual and his/her background. The information is very relevant to the conversation - and would significantly undermine that official’s position.
However, even if you revealed the information without naming the individual, everyone in his/her immediate personal and professional circle would know you were talking about that person. Moreover, delving into the particulars - which are key to the situation - would be embarrassing and ultimately professionally damaging to that person. And, for argument’s sake, the person in question is of workerbee stature, not a mover and shaker, simply somebody who wants to live their life in relative peace.
What do you do?
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Feed Portantino's Election Reelection Campaign - July 23rd, 2008
- Alvarez Waterboarded! - July 23rd, 2008
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Even the Cost of Underwear Is Increasing - July 23rd, 2008
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
Topics: Main Page, The Foothill Cities, What Are We Doing Here?, Uncategorized |
May 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I’m having a hard time following your hypothetical. Did a public official (elected or top executive) say the workerbee was doing his/her job and you found out they weren’t?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I was never one for “ethics” or “tact” or “writing respectfully” or “following the rules” or “being professional” or “toning down my language”….
May 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
(hope you’re all picturing that old Chris Farley “Weekend Update” bit with my comment above)
May 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The official presented this person’s presence as an indicator of a certain general condition.
In fact, this person’s presence may well indicate the opposite. However, the matter of how the person came to be present undermines the official’s assertion, yet, is also the unpleasant fact.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
So the question is do you publicly undress the worker bee just to undermine the official’s assertion.
Seems like the question answers itself when you consider the negative value of the undressing, with the limited positive value of undermining the official’s assertion.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Anon has it right, methinks. As you know Robert, the balance should be the “public’s right to know” with “Do no harm”
May 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Me thinks you are correct. Such intuition led me to ask in the first place. I think I’ll discuss more with Ed off line.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Robert, have you spoken with the “worker bee”?
and I can assume that the public official is not holding an “elected” position?
May 13th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Gilman, that was my question, have you asked this workerbee if it were OK to bring it out into the open?
Is is something better left to the police?
Is what they are doing damaging to the community?
If you disclose are you prepared to be the witness in a whistle blower suit if they are harassed out of a job?
Is there another way to get the information and not involve them? Could they help to get that other path and would they?
It’s a tough one, if it is just to call out this official as a liar when they are in a position of trust in govt then blow away. If its not then, well talk to a pro at a real newspaper and get their feed back.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Joe Friday here seeking the facts from Mr. Parry. Being a seasoned investigator Joe Friday can “read between the lines”. Is this post of yours in regards to the latest report from the desk of Scott Ochoa? Would you be talking about the soon to be re-hiring of an officer that left the police department not to long ago?
If so, Joe Friday has some concerns. Right now I have to go get ice cream for Mrs. Joe Friday. Joe Friday will report back later in the watch.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Very thoughtful question. To look at the broader context, the importance of a free press to a democracy (or democratic republic) is enshrined in the First Amendment which provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. As the tradtional press is fading in front of our eyes (with the atrophy of the daily print media), is that the end of the “press” for 1st Amendment purposes, or are blogs the “press” also? Largely an undecided question. Part of the traditional responsibility (in return for freedom)exercised by the press in return for its freedoms are the journalistic standards and ethics that govern the press. (such as distinguishing opinion from reporting facts, protecting sources, and the duty to investigate at times). So, a corollary question to the question of whether a blog is the “press” is what standards and ethics govern the blogs (either self imposed or imposed by third parties such as the courts). So all of the individual acts of the blogs in this era of developing industry and non existent law may end up having profound effect on how our 1st amendment freedoms are exercised in and after this era of shakeout and change in the traditional press. So the question at hand may have profound implications….
May 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Joe Friday -
Yes that would be the matter I am concerned about. I caution you, if you’re going to say something, it is probably best not to use specific names.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
robert,
in my experience, in life, each and every action has a consequence. obviously, some consequences are good and some are bad.
the foolish man (person) acts impulsively and oftentimes experiences a negative consequence as the direct result of such haste. the wise man weighs the potential consequence of his action - such as you appear to be doing here - and then acts in accordance with his best judgment and moral instinct of right and wrong.
i’m sure that you will do what you determine to be right for all concerned and not act in an impulsive manner simply for the sake of being right yourself.
good luck with your decision.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:20 am
We have to have an arena of speech, that enables all of us, to simply view an idea, without clouding the issue, with unnecessary prejudices. We live in a world where prejudice still exists. If our goal as a race, is to create an equally based on, where each citizens’ opinion means something of equal weight to the citizen next to them, then these citizens should not judged by how they look, who their ancestors are, how much money they make or how much education they were fortunate enough to be given. We have the right and a duty, to anonymously discuss ideas, that lead to an end conclusion, for the good of our world.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Let the chips fall where they may. Good government can only come about when its citizenry is vigilant. The desired result is far more important than anything that might happen along the way.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ethics=Robert Parry?
Ethics+Robert Parry?
Ethics-Robert Parry?
What a clever way to incite baseless speculation then get your piece of pseudo-information out there without actually doing the dirty deed yourself. I especially like the caution to Joe Friday. That’s rich.
I have to say I do admire that.
Are Joe Friday and Robert Parry different people, by the way?
Wonky Wonk
May 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Joe Friday here. Joe Friday and Robert Parry are two different people. Are Hay/Bad Boy and Monroman different people? Joe Friday is ethical and posts only things he has investigated on his own.
The CM of Monrovia has a lot to answer for besides his home deal. He has used the word “extortion” to describe the billboard put up by the MPOA. The CM has made statements like “every action has a reaction” and than followed that up with the decision to look at changing the officers work hours, ability to work overtime abd ability to promote in house. What would you call those actions Anonymous?
The CM also posts in his weekly report that the police department is in the process of re-hiring an officer that left some time ago for the private sector. That’s only part of the story which is all you get from the CM and council.
The officer “he mentioned” has very, and I mean very, limited police experience. The officer was well thought of while with the department, for a very short time, but his reasons for leaving is cause for concern. I hope the officer stays and does an outstanding job for the city, but how committed is the officer? I hope 100% and I wonder what this says about the cities recruitment efforts.
Those are the facts, Joe Friday reporting just the facts.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Wonkywonk-
Read your email. It takes huevos muy grande to criticize a man’s ethics from behind an anonymous cloak. Was that a pseudo-criticism of pseudo information from behind your pseudonym?
And, FYI, Joe and I are not the same person.
Joe-
That is the matter to which I referred. I think you’ve been charitable and respectful in your description. I would only clarify that the young man in question’s reasons for leaving were personal, related to his desire to do the work, and not at all a matter of termination by MPD or any sort of suspect behavior. It’s that kind of nuance that made me reluctant to discuss the matter at all.