Steve Plotnicki wrote: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?

I think it's a big loud shout of "Look at ME!!!"

Darren72 wrote:

bibi rose wrote: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 think I've already described my problem with this idea to the best of my abilities.

Edited to add: What you say in your post is my point, really. You shouldn't trust that anyone on the internet is posting responsibly.

Mike G wrote: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

Looks like you weren't the only one who felt this way. From a recent update to the FBCE blog:

The Badge
We’ve decided to hold off on putting the badge out for now. We’re conflicted about the negative message the badge might convey.

This is all well and good, but they still have their 'We the People' page, about which I have the same question as I did about the badge: who decides which blogs/sites get to be on this page? What guarantee does anyone have that this list of "ethical" blogs is unbiased & reliable, and not a bunch of cronyism? Who approves sites to be on this list, and what are this person's qualifications?

The FCBE page, in and of itself, doesn't strike me as all that nefarious - if they want to publish a "Code of Ethics" as their way of saying "we're taking a stand against irresponsible writers", or because they want to share their ideals with the world, then more power to them. It's the fact that they seem to want to be a "certifying body" of sorts that annoys me.

I guess my feelings over this whole "Code of Ethics" brouhaha can be boiled down to one phrase: who do these people think they are?

Khaopaat wrote:I guess my feelings over this whole "Code of Ethics" brouhaha can be boiled down to one phrase: who do these people think they are?

They are two groups who took the initiative to start this. Perhaps some people think that there shouldn't be any discussion of ethics or standards, but I don't think anyone here is saying that. So, it stands to reason that someone has to get the ball rolling. Both groups proposed a set of standards, initiated a discussion, listened to comments and criticisms, and modified their set of standards. What else would anyone propose they do? Others are free to sign on to their set of standards, others (like Steve Plotnicki) are free to disagree with the particular standards they proposed, and others are free to ignore the whole thing.

Darren72 wrote: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.

If I didn't frequently identify bias and agendas in their professional efforts, I hesitate to grant them expertise over standards and ethics.

Regards,

Cathy,

Could you help me to understand your post.

By "they" do you mean all journalists or are you referring to FCBE. And, could you explain the bias and agendas to which you refer.

Thanks.

I do think that the timing of eGullet's proposed code, on which development began in October 2007, suggests that there is some competition on who gets to be the authority here. I don't blame them for that, I suppose, but it does speak of motivation.

Generally, my thoughts pretty much echo Mike G's, though I guess I'm a little less dismissive of the professional journalist's claim.

The failure of the newspaper's business model isn't that it employs or cultivates experts/expertise. While the democratization of media may be a net positive, I do believe professional media adds value. Maybe that's just holding on to old ways of thinking, but I'm not convinced, and certainly not willing to pronounce final judgment at this still early stage of the newspaper's demise. What's happening now is that the one-time obvious distinction between the professional and the amateur (or new class of whatever dedicated self-publishing online entrepeneurs will ultimately be called) is blurred. The "professional" is less likely to have the badge of the Tribune or whatever Old Media Bastion. And those institutions are losing credibility anyway. Should be interesting to see how it shakes out; I suspect that, badge or no, there will remain some clear delineation, though between what and what, I'm not quite sure.

In the meantime, I have no intention of signing up for some stinking badges, though I generally share the values for which they stand. Except the multiple visits thing, which I think is dumb.

What's happening now is that the one-time obvious distinction between the professional and the amateur (or new class of whatever dedicated self-publishing online entrepeneurs will ultimately be called) is blurred.

But isn't this because the public are finding reporting that adheres to these types of codes less valuable?

You see the flip side of the question about the code is, and I guess this is Mike G's point, isn't the public smart enough to figure this stuff out by themselves? Of course flagrant ethical abuses (like being on a restaurant's payroll) are different. But how much weight does the public actually put in the average review from a blogger unless they have past experience with that person?

This "multiple visits" idea keeps coming up in posts where eGullet is mentioned, even though the "rule" comes from that other website, which I'd never even heard of before this thread. So there is no confusion, I'll note that the eG "code" has no mention of a multiple visit requirement.

Kennyz wrote:This "multiple visits" idea keeps coming up in posts where eGullet is mentioned, even though the "rule" comes from that other website, which I'd never even heard of before this thread. So there is no confusion, I'll note that the eG "code" has no mention of a multiple visit requirement.

Here's FCBE's updated take on the "multiple visits issue":

Do I really need to visit a restaurant more than once to be part of The Code?
Though we understand that going to a restaurant more than once isn’t always possible, we do believe that the idea of going multiple times should be considered. Could the experience you had be the result of a fluke bad night? Were you so hungry by the time you arrived that you would have been grateful for anything you put in your mouth? Or, conversely, that you were so hungry, no length of time waiting for your food to come out would have been tolerable? These are questions that all reviewers can ask themselves.

So when we talk about going to restaurants multiple times in the code, we realize that it’s an ideal. Some people are writing about restaurants that they go to in their travels, and most of us don’t have the money to go to places more than once (and find it especially hard to cough up the extra dough if a place stinks the first time we go). The code suggests that if you only go to a restaurant once, say so. We have updated the code to try and clarify this point.

count me as one who could care or less about Steve Shaws code, or egullet for that matter.

If you spend enough time participiating and sharing on online forums you learn whose opinions to read, and take seriously, badge wearer or not.

I agree with you, Jim. The code has no value to me. Neither do posts and blogs about opera, ballet, and the new Graham Elliott philosophy. I just don't share other people's disdain for the mere existence of these things.

jimswside wrote:count me as one who could care or less about Steve Shaws code, or egullet for that matter.
If you spend enough time participiating and sharing on online forums you learn whose opinions to read, and take seriously, badge wearer or not.

I agree with this completely. Furthermore, having once been married to a journalist - and having briefly been a professional journalist myself before that - I reject the blanket notion that professional journalists somehow have higher ethics standards than most mainstream food bloggers.

nr706 wrote:I agree with this completely. Furthermore, having once been married to a journalist, I reject the blanket notion that professional journalists somehow have higher ethics standards than most mainstream food bloggers.

I reject this also, but no one made this claim. Have they?

Kennyz wrote: Neither do posts and blogs about opera, ballet, and the new Graham Elliott philosophy. I just don't share other people's disdain for the mere existence of these things.

Good point Kenny,

BTW I enjoy your posting style, always to the point, and typically laced with some underlying humor.

Just as an aside, does anyone else find the references to "the Society" (eGullet -- and yes, I realize it's shorthand for the organization that runs eGullet) and "The Code" (FCBE) as a little creepy and cultish?

If (sort of by definition) those who regularly read blogs "get" what blogs are trying to do (not print journalism, not trying to be print journalism), what would be the motivation for any food blogger to sign on to any of these "codes of ethics"? Would that many people really stop reading a blog that wasn't a signatory?

jimswside wrote:

Kennyz wrote: Neither do posts and blogs about opera, ballet, and the new Graham Elliott philosophy. I just don't share other people's disdain for the mere existence of these things.

Good point Kenny,

BTW I enjoy your posting style, always to the point, and typically laced with some underlying humor.

Thanks, Jim. And I'll take this a little further. Not only do I find no value in the code, a blog brandishing an ethics "badge" would actually be a significant turnoff to me. My prejudice would be that this person is motivated more by generating an audience than by expressing thoughtful opinions.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

What's happening now is that the one-time obvious distinction between the professional and the amateur (or new class of whatever dedicated self-publishing online entrepeneurs will ultimately be called) is blurred.

But isn't this because the public are finding reporting that adheres to these types of codes less valuable?

You see the flip side of the question about the code is, and I guess this is Mike G's point, isn't the public smart enough to figure this stuff out by themselves? Of course flagrant ethical abuses (like being on a restaurant's payroll) are different. But how much weight does the public actually put in the average review from a blogger unless they have past experience with that person?

I think the blurring has accelerated because traditional media journalists are getting laid off en masse and entering the non-corporate online space that has previously served as something of a line of demarcation. Just as Tribune Co. is trying to figure out how to remain profitable, so are these journalists trying to figure out how to keep trading their professional skills for a living wage.

Whether those traditional journalists' positions have been cut because their content is less valuable than online counterparts; and whether that purported decline in value is related to an outdated code of ethics...I'm not convinced.

Now, journalistic reporting is different than critical reviewing, though both have been the province of professionals in the Old Media world. Someone (Emily Nunn maybe?) tweeted (sorry) a link to an interesting piece of congressional testimony on the future of journalism, basically underscoring the need for a professional Fourth Estate in service of democracy. That's pretty heady territory for food writing to claim.

Nevertheless, I'm wary of completely jettisoning old standards, even as I've very clearly seen the value of the New Media model and its accompanying looseness. I like to think "the public" is smart enough to "figure these things out by themselves," but I'm not sure I do. Or what the consequences are. I like what blogs, discussion boards, and the like add to the media mix. I'm not sure that means everyone needs to follow the still embryonic Web 2.0 way of doing things as if were already standardized.

I was just thinking of that same movie reference, Aaron...

Mike G wrote:

Now that I can get behind.

Admittedly, I don't read a ton of food blogs though I check in on some. So maybe I'm dense and there's something I don't get about the distinguishing between types of bloggers and the blurred lines between professionals and others. I usually read the "About Me" section or bio of the blogger. If they have experience and background that suggests they know what they're talking about, I tend to read them and trust them unless proven otherwise - whether they are a chef, food journalist, or gal who has spent all her free time the past 10 years trying to perfect homemade ice cream, etc. If the blogger's bio tells me he is some guy who he eats out a lot, moved to Chicago from New York and and claims he can't find anything to eat here that compares to New York - mmm, not so much. Once I have some understanding of the background of the blogger, and some experience with their posts, I make my own decision about whether or not I trust them. Is that not enough or am I being naive about something?

Intellectually on this topic I'm a fish flopping about on a wooden pier.

While I value high journalistic standards that horse was never in the barn (see Yahoo's 200 word story on any topic) and no code is going to bring it back in. It's a mistake (though I think honorable and well intentioned) to attempt to push the blogging dynamic towards journalism.

The responsibility is individualistic, both for content creation and interpretation as hellodali and others point out. And experience with a poster/author is quite likely the best guide and only workable operating principle to recommend.

I was impressed with what FCBE created regardless of motive. But I've arrived at the personal conclusion that it can't be implemented in any meaningful way. And believe it preferable that blogging content be represented as nothing more than it is (which is not a pejorative statement). To incorporate traditional journalistic ethics would do more damage than good. It would introduce confusion, not eliminate.

LTH should be commended for its standards. I don't see the alternatives mentioned here improving on them one iota.

I cannot imagine anything more monotonous or meaningless than every (food) blogger attempting to adhere to the same arbitrary set of standards, regardless of who created them. That notion runs counter to what I love most about the internet -- the diversity of opinions and backgrounds that are available. I trust my own abilities (and those of others) to discern credibility, and if I occasionally get fooled, so be it. I can live with that. In any event, aside from being a more natural environment, a world with no uniform standards sounds a helluva lot more interesting to me than the self-important pasteurization that would be indicated via the display of this proposed badge.

=R=

First of all, any code of ethics that does not explicitly spell out the necessity of describing - at length - the phone of a restaurant is not worth the pixels used to create it.

Second of all, what sort of nerd thought wearing a badge when eating out was a good thing?

I think some people are taking themselves too seriously.

I like food. I eat it almost every day. I will discuss it where and when I want. Leave the speech codes to the university types.

Ronnie, I don't think that the standards are arbitrary, especially those based on a traditional journalism model. Far from it. But let's face, suggesting that bloggers are going to sign on en masse to a standard mid stream is at its foundation completely ridiculous. (the badge is an unfortunate mistake)

The danger I see is that attempting this foolishness in the blogosphere potentially compromises the journalistic integrity of the fourth estate. It is a good thing to have distinct separation between citizen journalism and institutional journalism. The latter still has an important role to play in policing the truth. Food is not at the top of my subject list but important nonetheless.

AngrySarah wrote:Second of all, what sort of nerd thought wearing a badge when eating out was a good thing?

Indeed.

Well, but we wanted it to be a secret from the restaurants. A stealth-lapel-label.

Actually, the post Aaron referenced was by definition nerdly, since it was inspired by the Mensa practice of giving its members small pins with a plain round yellow top, so other smart, socially-awkward people can recognize each other.

Mike G wrote:

I was just thinking of that same movie reference, Aaron...

You have stolen my new signiture line, which was inspired by this thread.