Act Independently

Question:Without a backdrop of objectivity for Indy' media, is truth/accountability lost?

Answer: Yes. Without a backdrop of objectivity for ANY journalist, mainstream or citizen, credibility is just not there.

So what makes a journalist credible? ..Well blogger David Weinberger believes that transparency is the new objectivity. In 2009 he wrote on his hyperorg.com blog "If you don’t think objectivity is possible, then you think that the claim of objectivity is actually hiding the biases that inevitably are there." Weinberger said.

Part of the SPJ Code of Ethics is to Act Independently, something that is difficult for mainstream media outlets like ABC and NBC who are owned by big businesses Disney and General Electric. This is what Weinberger means when he says the 'claim of objectivity', because we all know that it would not be wise for a journalist at NBC to write negative or critical stories about General Electric. So yes bias is inevitably there.

Weinberger makes a good point, but to say that transparency outweighs objectivity is a pretty bold statement. Indy media is often praised for asking the hard questions in pursuit of the truth. But mainstream and citizen journalists can both get the facts wrong, and especially now with the internet, speed often trumps accuracy.

So what happens when they get it wrong? Does being transparent and disclosing their sources mean citizen/independent journalists are not accountable for what they publish on the web?

In 1999 'Star' a gossip magazine published an "investigative" story about President Bill Clinton knocking up a prostitute. Not many mainstream outlets covered the story right away, but Drudgereport.com, a well know muckraking blog, decided to pick up the "developing" story.

The website gave a synopsis of the story and quoted the Star magazine article, but did not show a very objective standpoint. Drudge wrote, "What becomes immediately obvious to the viewer watching the videotaped confession is that this is clearly not gossip, rumor or anonymous charges being maliciously directed at a politician. Bobbie Ann Williams does not hide her face in shadow when she names Bill Clinton as the father of her son. And there is something sad and lonely about the woman's story and the way she tells it." (The article can be found on the DrudgeReport archives website)

How would Matt Drudge know whether or not the confession was gossip, rumor or malicious charges? Because a GOSSIP MAGAZINE said it wasn't!? This showed a vary slanted opinion in favor of the prostitute, because she didn't hide her face and she looked sad. (wahh)

In my opinion disclosing a source is sometimes important, but that does not mean that the source is credible or even sane for that matter. So sorry Weinberger, you make a good point and yes transparency is important, but it does not completely outweigh or replace objectivity. Noo way. Every journalist should be held to the same standards and be accountable for what they publish.