The Agonist and bloggers' ethics
The blogging community has been abuzz with talk about the actions of Sean-Paul Kelley, a Texas blogger who admitted to plagiarizing Stratfor for his popular war blog, The Agonist. What are the ethical responsibilities of bloggers?
The plagarism was first reported by the Strategic Armchair Command blog -- a great example of bloggers policing other bloggers -- and then in an article on Wired News.
Most of the reaction in the blogging community has been negative -- some have stopped linking to him, while others published harsh rebukes, accusing him of ruining the reputation of the blogging community. But many say they forgive him, or even that it's not that big a deal.
CyberJournalist.net thinks you can't have it both ways: if someone wants to publish a blog that is taken seriously as a news source -- as Kelley attempted to do -- then that person should follow journalistic practices and ethics (see the SPJ Code of Ethics). Not doing so means the readers have no way of knowing whether they can trust the information posted.
Bloggers should always attribute information on their Web sites, so that writers not only get credit, but readers know where it's coming from and whether to trust it.
CyberJournalist.net also suggests that bloggers who wish to be taken seriously as information sources consider adopting an ethics and practices policy, so that readers know what they should expect.
To that end, CyberJournalist.net has created a model for a Bloggers' Code of Ethics (based on the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics). Take a look at let us know what you think.
Those interested can find more information about online ethics and credibility in CyberJournalist.net's special section on the subject.
And while bloggers who only want to spout their opinions and not pitch themselves as news sources may not have to follow all journalism ethical practices, they should still follow basic human ethics -- which include not stealing or plagiarizing.
Here's a look at what others in the blogging community have had to say about Kelley's actions:
Glenn Reynolds:
To those who are pronouncing this scandal a blow to the credibility of the blogosphere, I should note that (1) he was first caught out by another blogger; and (2) it's not as if Big Media has been free of such things�.The real reason I haven't linked to him a lot is simpler: most of his posts didn't have links to sources. I didn't suspect plagiarism, really, but I'm generally skeptical of secondhand reports without clear sourcing.
Meryl Yourish:
Kelley's plagiarism is a blow to the credibility of the blogosphere. And it should be big news in the blogosphere...The war has caused his popularity surge. His seemingly uncanny line to information (now revealed to have been lifted whole cloth from Stratfor) helped him achieve that high visibility. And he still has it.
Ken Layne:
There's never any excuse for passing off somebody else's work as your own�.Cut-and-paste "reporting" is pretty bogus, but I guess it's conceivable that an amateur might not understand the importance of sourcing and using quotation marks (or blockquotes). What's totally unacceptable is claiming stuff from a subscription newsletter is actually from your make-believe "string of high-level sources worldwide," as Wired's Daniel Forbes put it.
Rafe Colburn:
Sean-Paul's site is clearly well done in spite of the plagiarism, but I honestly have no idea how good it is because I don't know how much of his stuff is taken from other sites and posted without attribution. Unfortunately, I can no longer recommend his site to my readers.
Colby Cosh:
Some people seem to be taking a view like this: "OK, The Agonist plagiarized material from another site - but he aggregated war news conveniently, quickly, and accurately all the same. From my standpoint as a reader, why do I care whether the stuff was plagiarized?
The Washington Post interviewed two media experts:
Larry Pryor, executive editor of the University of Southern California's Online Journalism Review, said that while many bloggers maintain they are not journalists, "bloggers have become too important to brush off this question" of journalism ethics. While bloggers might be one-person shops, Pryor said he believes whether bloggers "like it or not, they have to follow ethics." He noted that bloggers seem to want it both ways -- to be taken seriously, to make an impact on discourse, all while being free of traditional rules. "If they are going to be taken seriously, they have to follow [ethical] rules." Those rules include providing attribution and avoiding plagiarism, he said.
Paul Grabowicz, director of the new media program at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism, said while "anything goes in Weblogs," he hopes that they adhere to principles like attribution, evaluating source material for links and not plagiarizing. But, he said, because weblogs are online conversations, "I don't think they need to be held to the same standards [as journalists]," he said. "I would rephrase it as expectations. If you are gong to be running a blog and you want people to listen to you, then it seems to me that you have some sort of internal standards ... or else who is going to pay attention."
The Washington Post also lists comments from readers:
Many don't seem to think that Kelley's actions were that big of deal. They insist that blogging is free -- i.e. a free-flow medium and not a journalistic endeavor.
MSNBC.com's Will Femia:
True, you can't believe everything you read, and just because the author of a Weblog or the man on TV said it doesn't make it true. Weblogs have already established themselves as an acceptable means of conveying accurate news, diligent journalism, and insightful commentary. The Agonist's plagiarism doesn't change that. But regardless of whether they seek the news in Weblogs or more traditional genres, news consumers cannot afford to be lazy. Unattributed claims should always be suspect.
Blogger Daniel W. Drezner:
As a graduate student in international relations, Kelley knew (or should have known) he was in the wrong as he was lifting Stratfor's content, and he was in the wrong again when he initially tried to deny the plagiarism.
Metafilter thread on the subject.
Should bloggers be expected to practice good ethics? Should they follow journalism ethics codes? What do you think? Post your opinions below.
Apr 15, 2003 | E-MAIL | SAVE | PRINT
| PERMALINK
| DISCUSS(5)
Discussion
5 comments about 'The Agonist and bloggers' ethics'Of course they should follow some sort of ethics.
Why promote false things. The truth is all we need.
Posted by Jake at May 2, 2003 4:41 PM
I just learned all about this and I'm to interview him in a couple weeks for my blog since his blog is very interesting and personal.
I don't normally read the main home page of his, I read his central Asia blog.
Posted by Cecile Dubois at August 6, 2003 5:13 PM
Blogs are DIARIES.
Why would anyone take them seriously?
Posted by Miss Existentialist at November 16, 2003 7:52 PM
Great site and great information.
Posted by John Herman at January 28, 2004 2:55 AM
E pluribus Unum
Posted by Texas holdem at November 16, 2004 4:16 PM
Post a comment
Site Map
