Bloggers

The standards for bloggers versus professional journalists should be the same if the blog is claiming to be journalistic but most blogs are not. Blogs are used to communicate with others on a personal level--a conversation of the writer to the reader. Journalists write to be printed with editors cutting and changing their words to capture a conveyed meaning and an opinion. The blogger has complete control over what they are saying “the freedom from foreign gatekeepers” (Levinson, p. 84) this freedom allows the blogger to say whatever they want as opposed to the journalists editorial controlled writing. Both journalist and bloggers can earn money on what they write, so are they the same? No, a professional journalist is paid to write for someone and then all work is edited by someone else. A blogger being paid as an advocate of a product is nothing more than a paid spokesman. The question needing asked and answered is does advertising in traditional media compromise journalistic integrity? Levinson points out “that there is no cause and effect between advertising and faulty reporting” (p. 97) but he goes on to point out stories that have been killed because advertisers objected.
Reference:
Levinson, P. (2012) New Media. Second Edition. Penguin Academics.
3. Should bloggers blog anonymously?
When I first thought about the question of anonymous bloggers, I thought why would it matter they’re only bloggers. Then I began to break the question down and I realize that it does matter depending on what the blogger is trying to communicate. A food blogger telling about the best restaurant or recipe for chicken writing anonymously doesn’t bother me. A blogger writing about health issues anonymously would. I want to think the person writing about health issues is a doctor or nurse—someone that possesses credentials making the blog more than just mere words on the internet. I do agree with Levinson “the great advantage of anonymous blogging, of course, is that it maximizes the freedom of bloggers to speak or post their minds without fear of reprisal from supervisors, bosses, voters, friends, and family” (p. 105).
Reference:
Levinson, P. (2012) New Media. Second Edition. Penguin Academics.

4. Does blogging liberate the public sphere or do the mainstream media (radio, television, newspapers and their online counterparts) still dominate public opinion?
5. What do you think of Keren’s typology? Do you agree with it? Why or Why not?

As journalism grows less profitable by the day, the ethics of the whole profession come into crisis. As more newspapers fail, the line between bloggers,citizen journalists and professionals grows harder to distinguish. Nonetheless, when a paid journalist gets his or her information wrong, there is often an outcry. Do we have a right to the same sense of disgust when a blogger does the same?
The only reason we wonder if whether blogs should be treated like traditional news media is because we wrongly think of them as news sources and not what they are: either personal reflections (of a sort) or communicators of gossip and innuendo intended to make a profit. It doesn't mean we have no right to get angry when they spread false information (especially if they're about but many of the blogs we visit, either simply by visiting the site or by clicking on ads, means the blogger gets paid. That is the problem. Most respected news organizations would never pay their sources, so why do we pay people whose motive for publishing is unknown to us?
We have traditionally read newspapers, magazines, journals (and their online equivalents) because they do the dirty work of assessing the validity of sources for us. The more we pay bloggers (indirectly as it may be) the less goes to professional journalists, and the more blogging and journalism align. It's not a situation we should relish. We all like a little gossip sometimes, but by crying out that journalists and bloggers should be held to the same set of standards, we act as if they are equals, which they are not. In time, those bloggers who identify themselves may enter the 21 century pantheon of journalism, but in most cases, the bloggers who draw most of our ire for false and malicious posts are faceless, anonymous and destined to remain something distinct from journalism.
The public must start by voting with its mice. Those bloggers who build reputations of gossip and slander should be ignored, as a reporter would any discredited source. While their specter will never disappear, it will lessen as the profit motive is removed from the equation. Spend more time with the multitude of news sites with identified reporters and editors. The more you read, the more confident you can be in the information. No, they're not perfect either, but they are far less likely to be wrong or to engage in outright lying.
If we keep treating bloggers like journalists, we'll have no professional journalists, let alone ethical standards, left. They'll be no money left to pay them after all. So when a 21st century Paul Revere comes crying in the night warning us of a coming catastrophe, we will be left to take their words on faith alone. Imagine if that had happened in Revere's day.