Steven Shaw's (eGullet) Code of Ethics for Food Bloggers

Steven Shaw, "the Fat Guy", the founder of eGullet, has just posted a code of ethics for food bloggers, and I post it here with the page linkage (I hope that this reprinting constitutes fair use. I believe that Shaw would like this to be spread as far as possible and become the "industry standard."). The code seems pretty straightforward to me, even though Shaw is, in some circles, fairly controversial. But I thought that it would be useful for posters on LTH to have the opportunity to read it and comment on it on our website. I believe that it is generally consistent with the standards on LTH. If one wishes to comment on the code on eGullet, one needs to join that website (which is not difficult to do).

eGullet CODE OF ETHICS Steven Shaw/eGullet Code of Ethics

Original content. All content on this website is the original creation of the author except when clearly attributed, such as by quotation marks, citations and credits.

Respect for intellectual property. All text, photos and other media from outside sources is republished only with the explicit permission of its owner or in compliance with an applicable license (e.g., Creative Commons), with the exception of brief quotations from written works in the context of discussing those works.

Links where credit is due. Where the creator of content referenced on this website has made it possible to link to that content, a link is given here. Where books are referenced, links are provided to allow purchase. In general, links are favored over reproduction of content.

Disclosure of comps. Where a free or discounted product or service has been accepted, a corresponding disclosure is made.

No quid pro quo. Before accepting a free or discounted product or service, the author advised the provider of that product or service that favorable coverage would not be provided in exchange for the comp, and that all reports on the product or service would represent the author's actual opinions.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest. Where the author has a relationship with the subject of coverage beyond a casual or typical customer relationship, that relationship is disclosed. Financial and employment relationships, including those of close friends, associates and family members, will also be disclosed.

Disclosure in the first instance. Where disclosures are required, they are made in the original post on the subject. Repeated disclosures will not necessarily appear in subsequent posts in the same series. However, if new threads on the same subject are opened, reacknowledgement is made with a separate statement or by linking to the original disclosure.

Terms of service. This website abides by a published list of rules that cover, among other things, participatory conduct, use of anonymity, and consequences for violations of the terms. Further, this site may operate on a platform (such as Wordpress.com or Blogger.com) that has a separate terms-of-service document. If so, this site adheres to those terms.

Fair comment. This website allows registered users to comment on the content contained herein. Free and fair comment will be permitted so long as it is civil and conforms to this website's terms of service, including this document.

Fact checking. The author of any factual statement on this website has made a good-faith effort to confirm the accuracy of that statement. Statements of opinion, however, are just that.

Corrections. Where factual errors are discovered or reported, corrections will be made promptly by editing or in a subsequent declaration.

Faithfulness to the historical record. This site has an edit window of X minutes to permit correction of typographical, spelling, attribution and minor errors. Neither this window nor administrative powers will be used to remove or alter content in a way that distorts the historical development of any content, except when the terms of service have been violated. Even then, due care will be taken to restore the content so as to preserve the record.

Revision. This code will be revised, updated and clarified from time to time. The latest version of the code along with elaboration and discussion can be found at LINK.

Just out of curiosity, why is Shaw controversial?

That's all well and good, but LTH Forum already has some site specific guidelines.

Darren72 wrote:Just out of curiosity, why is Shaw controversial?

Like any community, the foodie community has a lot of history. A lot of chardonnay under the bridge. It depends who you talk to, but to make things simple there are some people who feel that eGullet was Steve's personal fiefdom. But this is not the place for real or imagined details. He deserves great credit for establishing eGullet.

I saw this a week or two ago, Gary, and I'm glad you posted it. It raises some interesting issues. Most of this is the kind of thing I'd like to think of as common sense, though it obviously is not. I find myself mostly in agreement, with one glaring exception, and I think it's an interesting topic of discussion.

Multiple visits.

If we're talking about classic newspaper or magazine reviews or yore, I agree, this is preferable if not critical. But I'm not convinced that it isn't an obsolete standard. In an age when it was expected that a review would possibly if not probably be a reader's sole look at a restaurant, it made sense that a reviewer should visit multiple times to be sure they weren't just catching an off night. But with the democratization of food criticism (pro, semi-pro and amateur) and the advent of the internet, who reads just one account of a restaurant anymore? It seems to me that the multiple visit ideal has been supplanted by today's multiple visitor reality, and I'm not so sure going two or three times matters anymore (provided the writer is straightforward about the circumstances under which his/her conclusions were reached).

I'm curious to know, did Shaw come up with these before or after this food blogger code of ethics, which has been bouncing around the food blogosphere of late? (I commented on it at more length here.)

Most of these seem straightforward, and as obvious as crossing at the light and flossing at night. I won't exactly say a novena to St. Steven every time I do these things I would do anyway. (I would disagree that comments are a requirement; if somebody just feels like not messing with that, that's their right.)

In both the Shaw and Burton-Greenstein codes, I catch a certain whiff of advancing oneself at the expense of one's rivals by claiming to be better than them. (The "About us" in the latter case is especially thick.) More than anything, I dislike the idea of insisting that any new medium has to follow the rules of any existing medium, or even new rules. If there isn't room for eccentricity and diversity of approach here, where is there?

But I'm not convinced that it isn't an obsolete standard.

I am convinced that it is. Phil Vettel needs to visit Brasserie Pretension at least twice because once he's written about it, he's written about it, that's it for at least a decade. But no restaurant is ever done on LTHForum, or in the blogosphere, there's always room for new and evolving opinions as restaurants get better and worse (which is, incidentally, why I keep wishing the GNRs would reflect the reality of places going downhill as the reports continue to come in). I am not obligated to go twice to somewhere when 50 other LTHers will go there over the next year. My final word, even if it were final, is only one of many and carries no more weight than my good writing and conviction can convey compared to all the other posts on the same subject.

Mike G wrote:I'm curious to know, did Shaw come up with these before or after this food blogger code of ethics, which has been bouncing around the food blogosphere of late? (I commented on it at more length here.)

Shaw says that he has been working on this code of ethics since 2007. But he is a blogger, so who's to know?

Sorry to butt in but I really don't think Shaw is in a position to propose a code of ethics.

www.opinionatedaboutdining.com/OADblog.php?ID=10911

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Sorry to butt in but I really don't think Shaw is in a position to propose a code of ethics.

http://www.opinionatedaboutdining.com/O ... p?ID=10911

Darren,

Thus my reference to Shaw as "controversial."

GAF wrote:Thus my reference to Shaw as "controversial."

Just to be clear, the opinionated about Steven Shaw piece was written by Steve Plotnicki, who is posting in this thread and is upfront about there being no love lost between the two of them.

Not an opinion of the code of ethics, just a point of clarification.

Regards,
Gary

Yes what Gary (and Gary) said is true.

Personally, regardless of how you might feel about me, or how you might feel about Shaw, I think this is an important issue and the link to my article needs to be sent to as many people as possible. The last thing we need on the 'Net are people who have acted in a way that appears to be unethical, governing the way that other people act. If you are someone who believes there needs to be a code of ethics for bloggers (I'm not convinced,) let's make sure that it comes from someone who doesn't have the types of conflicts that Shaw appeares to have.

egullet's post went live on May 5th. Foodwoolf/SpicySaltySweet's FBCE site threw up their first post on April 30th.

Just chatted with Foodwoolf last Tuesday @ Goin's Tavern, but there is NO way I'll sport the FBCE badge

April 30th, FBCE goes live: http://foodethics.wordpress.com/2009/04/

Yeah, the badge is really the worst of all worlds. Look, I'm an officially responsible approved blogger, don't read bad unregistered bloggers exercising their free speech rights in an unapproved fashion... all that makes my skin crawl. I'm all for rough community consensus on what you do and don't do, but stamps of approval from authority are everything that internet freedom of speech is NOT about.

TonyC wrote:egullet's post went live on May 5th. Foodwoolf/SpicySaltySweet's FBCE site threw up their first post on April 30th.

Just chatted with Foodwoolf last Tuesday @ Goin's Tavern, but there is NO way I'll sport the FBCE badge

Whoops, I thought Shaw's thing and the FBCE piece were one and the same. FBCE was the one I'd seen and was commenting on.

So not only are we looking to standardize food bloggers, but we're tripping over ourselves to be the ones with our name on the standard?

That... um... lame.

Voluntary codes of ethics are nothing more than a trap whereby a third party is trying to control your behavior for their own benefit. There is nothing wrong with getting special treatment at a restaurant, or even getting comped, as long as you disclose it so your readers can make up their mind about whether they want to believe you. Ethics only come into play if you don't disclose it.

GAF wrote:Links where credit is due. Where the creator of content referenced on this website has made it possible to link to that content, a link is given here. Where books are referenced, links are provided to allow purchase. In general, links are favored over reproduction of content.

Especially links to Amazon, for which I assume eG is still getting a kickback.

The main problem with the eG document, for me, is that, in looking at Shaw's introduction in that post:

In October of 2007 I said the Society would be publishing a code of ethics for online writers: bloggers, discussion-forum participants and others. After much discussion and revision, we're pleased to present our online code of ethics for member comment.

it purports to set the same standard for people running their own blogs AND for people posting to a public board. We should all try to be accurate and honest in our postings to a board, and I have no problem with the type of expression of community standards that's on the section of this board that's referred to upthread. I just don't think someone running a board like eG should claim to be setting standards which they have no way of enforcing. To do so creates false expectations. I am a long-term believer that readers need to take responsibility for their own experience on a board as public as eG.

I don't know, maybe that introduction was just lazy writing on Shaw's part. "And others?" Does he mean people who post on Twitter?

I have no skin in this game, but I have to say it seems like Mr. Shaw is going about this the right way. Instead of just publishing an arbitrary code of ethics, he drafted one and put it out for his members' comments. He made it clear that following the code would be purely voluntary, and that neither he nor his website would act as an enforcement agency. I know nothing about the man's history, but given the way he's approached this particular subject, I have a hard time understanding the harshness of the criticism. If one does not like his suggested code of ethics, one is under no obligation to follow it. This argument sounds like typical BBQ debates that get completely out of hand:

"For people who like barbecue, I suggest Smoque, which happens to be in my neighborhood. It's my favorite Q in he city."

"How dare you suggest Smoque! What nerve! You're totally biased, because Smoque serves good brisket, and you like good brisket. You're just trying to steer people to a place that you like! That's completely wrong! People should be free to eat BBQ wherever they want!"

I have a hard time understanding the harshness of the criticism. If one does not like his suggested code of ethics, one is under no obligation to follow it.

What happens if it really takes off, though? Wouldn't there be a stigma attached to not following it? When in fact there are many reasons for occasionally bending some of these rules in the name of artistic expression.

I don't think the criticism is especially harsh, well, other than Steve vs Steve, but there's a clubbishness about the implied "only read blogs following the Code" (or wearing its badge) that seems antithetical to what I like about the wide open free speech internet, where nobody knows you're a dog. (And as Dmnkly points out, it's kind of funny that two of these pop up in a week, like rival Moseses come down from different mountains.)

Mike G wrote:What happens if it really takes off, though? Wouldn't there be a stigma attached to not following it? When in fact there are many reasons for occasionally bending some of these rules in the name of artistic expression.

If it really takes off, then there's the cool, grassroots nature of internet blogging in action. I mean, what if this whole GNR thing takes off, and people start deciding only to go to places that display the GNR logo? Wait, there are people who do that. What if people only go to places that have at least 4 stars on Yelp? What if someone seeks out only non-CAFO pork because of something they saw on Sky Full of Bacon? I find it hard to blame a food blogger if he/she writes something that people like and then decide to follow.

Kennyz wrote:"For people who like barbecue, I suggest Smoque, which happens to be in my neighborhood. It's my favorite Q in he city."[/i]

Kenny,

I am curious why you used Smoque as an example, why not Honey 1 or Uncle John's? Is Smoque in your neighborhood? Do you know the owner? Have you ever shaken Barry Sorkin's hand, been given a free soda or extra cup of sauce?

I feel full disclosure, in particular given the subject matter of this thread, is essential for us to accurately interprete meaning and intention.

Regards,
Gary

I asked this on the comment section of a blog but haven't recieved an answer yet so I will re-ask it here: Is there a reason for a code of ethics for bloggers? And I am not asking a hypothetical question. Exactly what happened that made people propose a code of ethics? Was there an actual reason for them to propose it, or are they merely trying to aggrandize their own position in the overall conversation that Mike G describes by claiming they are eneitled to be in a position of authority?

Mike G wrote:What happens if it really takes off, though? Wouldn't there be a stigma attached to not following it? When in fact there are many reasons for occasionally bending some of these rules in the name of artistic expression.

I think the point of the Code is to discuss and hopefully come to agreement on a set of principles. At a certain point, trust and common sense take over. Trust, because when you read a site like this or eGullet, you trust that others are posting responsibly. Common sense because there will be situations or new mediums in which some of these items are not followed for good reason, or new situations where an ethical code has not been established and we rely on the common sense of the author to determine an appropriate course of action.

Maybe you guys missed my question but did something happen that made people want to propose a code?

bibi rose wrote:

GAF wrote:Links where credit is due. Where the creator of content referenced on this website has made it possible to link to that content, a link is given here. Where books are referenced, links are provided to allow purchase. In general, links are favored over reproduction of content.

Especially links to Amazon, for which I assume eG is still getting a kickback.

The main problem with the eG document, for me, is that, in looking at Shaw's introduction in that post:

In October of 2007 I said the Society would be publishing a code of ethics for online writers: bloggers, discussion-forum participants and others. After much discussion and revision, we're pleased to present our online code of ethics for member comment.

it purports to set the same standard for people running their own blogs AND for people posting to a public board. We should all try to be accurate and honest in our postings to a board, and I have no problem with the type of expression of community standards that's on the section of this board that's referred to upthread. I just don't think someone running a board like eG should claim to be setting standards which they have no way of enforcing. To do so creates false expectations. I am a long-term believer that readers need to take responsibility for their own experience on a board as public as eG.

I don't know, maybe that introduction was just lazy writing on Shaw's part. "And others?" Does he mean people who post on Twitter?

The revised version of the eGullet code is at http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=124044/

The bit about linking to a site to purchase a book has been taken out. (Although, I think it is useful to include this link, just as it is useful to include addresses at the bottom of a post.)

What's wrong with having the same code for bloggers and for those who post to a board? The introduction says the code "provides guidance for online writers: bloggers, those who post on message boards, and others who write online in any capacity. The code is particularly focused on those who write about food, however it may be helpful to any online writer. While the code is in part informed by the ethics of print journalism, it was drafted with the specific needs and realities of the online world in mind." While I am sure we can come up with instances where a blogger and poster to LTH should not be held to the same standard, I think these instances are rare and common sense is a good guide. I don't see why this "main problem" is that big of a deal.

I find it hard to blame a food blogger if he/she writes something that people like and then decide to follow.

Then don't blame me if I write something that disagrees with it and people decide to follow that, I guess...

I think the point of the Code is to discuss and hopefully come to agreement on a set of principles.

Yeah, but the FBCE bunch is also proposing a badge:

http://foodethics.wordpress.com/author/foodethics/

(Clearly they're not following a code of using a professional graphic designer.) Anyway, that's the part that seems creepy to me. Shades of this code:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority

Maybe you guys missed my question but did something happen that made people want to propose a code?

Or maybe we were simply interested in some other aspect of it, but this does raise the point that the motivation for all this seems a bit mysterious. The FBCE bunch cites this as their motivation:

As the blogging world expands exponentially, more and more people in the culinary world believe that food bloggers—as a group—are unfair, highly critical, untrained and power hungry individuals empowered by anonymity. As trained journalists who happen to be food bloggers, we feel it is unfair to be labeled something we aren’t. By creating a food blogger code of ethics, we hope to draw attention to the food bloggers who hold themselves to higher standards.

This, to me, gives the game away. A group of professional journalists who blog dislikes the fact that amateurs are now crowding into their business, depriving them of the superior status they once held relative to their readers. So they talk to a few restaurateurs who have been burned by the occasional Yelp review, and start promoting this view of bloggers as "unfair, highly critical, untrained and power hungry individuals empowered by anonymity." While some of these "crimes" do have to do with ethical issues, there's nothing unethical about being highly critical (indeed, the reverse may be truer), with being career-minded (Mark Bittman, you stand accused!) or especially with anonymity, which is normally insisted upon in some form in food reviewing.

There's no particular reason to think that this set of straw man issues is a real problem-- but it serves both threatened professional journalists and burned restaurateurs to disparage the hoi polloi of bloggers by promoting the idea. This is the biggest problem I have with doing anything to acknowledge standards set by these people-- a conviction that they are, ultimately, no friends to the general run of food bloggers, or even to the idea of blogging itself.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Maybe you guys missed my question but did something happen that made people want to propose a code?

I propose the following code: if one asks a question on an internet discussion site, and there is no answer within 12 minutes, one should not re-ask the same question.

I had never heard of the FBCE group and I think Mike's comment on their motives rings true to me. At the same time, professional journalists have a measure of expertise in the area of journalistic standards and ethics. It is natural for professional journalists to play a role - perhaps a large role - in crafting guidelines for others.

Note also that eGullet has a logo/badge.

There's no particular reason to think that this set of straw man issues is a real problem-- but it serves both threatened professional journalists and burned restaurateurs to disparage the hoi polloi of bloggers by promoting the idea. This is the biggest problem I have with doing anything to acknowledge standards set by these people-- a conviction that they are, ultimately, no friends to the general run of food bloggers, or even to the idea of blogging itself.

This is a salient point. Bloggers have an advantage over journalists because we are not tied to their ethical codes. Take my own business model which is based around getting the best meal possible so I can communicate the information to my readers. If I go into a restaurant in Spain and whip out my little OAD Dining Survey and the restaurant cooks up a meal that I wouldn't know I could order if I didn't disclose my identity, and then I get comped on the meal (without asking for it,) using "the code," many people would argue that is unethical, even though I disclosed it in my review. But the people who read my site expect me to ferret out that type of information for them because they would like to be able to ask for that type of meal when they go to the restaurant.

To me this is the problem with any of the codes that are being proposed. They are an antiquated set of rules that date from an earlier era of journalism and social commentary, which certain third parties are trying to impose on others for their own self aggrandizement. I mean why would anyone want bloggers to act like newspaper journalists. Newspapers are a failing business model.