Tuesday, May 17, 2005
On "responsibility"
One last thing. Do we really need to hear lectures from Glenn Reynolds on responsibility and ethics in reporting? This is what the professor said yesterday:
Of course, that comment was made immediately following a Reynolds reference to a third-hand unverified hearsay post from an Austin Bay commenter saying that his "friends" had told him that Newsweek’s article had “singlehandedly turned US triumph in the country to a total disaster.” Now, that’s responsible reporting!
This is a man who will post not once, not twice, but over half- a-dozen times on any number of untrue non-stories that drag into the mud the reputations of anyone he sees fit. But that’s OK, because, eventually, I suppose, the “self-correcting blogosphere” will be able to determine that it was full of shit. Sometimes. Or not at all. No correction or retraction necessary.
The ethical world that Reynolds inhabits is a frightening one. According to him, any scurrilous charge can be aired, any uninformed musing that aims to destroy someone's reputation can be made (see Alex Polier, Michael Kranish), anything can be talked about, as long as the blogger adds a supremely weak and slimy caveat like "Well, I'm not sure about this." I wonder if the professor would approve of a post like this?
Heh.
Really, I don't want to hear another word about the superior "responsibility" of Big Media. Not one more word.
Of course, that comment was made immediately following a Reynolds reference to a third-hand unverified hearsay post from an Austin Bay commenter saying that his "friends" had told him that Newsweek’s article had “singlehandedly turned US triumph in the country to a total disaster.” Now, that’s responsible reporting!
This is a man who will post not once, not twice, but over half- a-dozen times on any number of untrue non-stories that drag into the mud the reputations of anyone he sees fit. But that’s OK, because, eventually, I suppose, the “self-correcting blogosphere” will be able to determine that it was full of shit. Sometimes. Or not at all. No correction or retraction necessary.
The ethical world that Reynolds inhabits is a frightening one. According to him, any scurrilous charge can be aired, any uninformed musing that aims to destroy someone's reputation can be made (see Alex Polier, Michael Kranish), anything can be talked about, as long as the blogger adds a supremely weak and slimy caveat like "Well, I'm not sure about this." I wonder if the professor would approve of a post like this?
IS GLENN REYNOLDS A PEDOPHILE NATIONAL SOCIALIST? The Daily Slime seems to think so, but I'm somewhat skeptical.
UPDATE: Well, it looks like from this New York Times article that he's probably not. Of course, this is the New York Times.
LATER UPDATE: Reader Bill Feeling is pretty sure he's seen Reynolds goose-stepping around day care centers.
Heh.
Permalink posted by Jonathan : 5:56 PM
