Blogger Rule of Etiquette

Stitch, you're right. The readership of the blog probably was miniscule. It just was secretive and rude, IMO. That's all.

 

If the individual is covering a state prep event for a live blog, that person has probably never done much reporting before. He or she probably had no idea that live blogging another one-on-one was unethical.

You can debate whether or not he or she SHOULD have known. (Probably)

But, instead of hopping on SportsJournalists.com when you got home to talk about it, you could have said something politely (or even not so politely) so (hopefully) that person doesn't make the same mistake again.

 

I did, Schottey. And a colleague of the blogger also told him it wasn't the PC thing to do. I'm all cool with the blogger, who realized it wasn't the right thing to do.

I am old school. I was curious in the age of new media, if ethics have changed with regard to interviews. And if they have, maybe I need to learn and/or jump on the bandwagon. I've been a sports writer for 20 years ... and the blogger ... two years at most.

 

Why are we constantly referencing this reporter as a "blogger" as though he isn't a credentialed media member? All credentialed media members ought to be held to the same standards. And it was a bit scuzzy, but nothing to be outraged about.

 

I'm not outraged. It was rude. Period.

My point is this: In new media times ... have the rules and etiquette changed?

 

Awesome! That, I believe, is the takeaway here. Blogger or not, as a young guy it is something he knows now and hopefully doesn't do again.

 

The problem here is that we are journalists -- journalists who apply journalism-type rules of etiquette to the "blogging" that most of us also are asked to do as part of our jobs these days.

Bloggers who are just bloggers, and not connected to newspaper or specific, recognized media outlets, -- may not play by the same rules. They might not even know or think to do so. Therefore, there may, in fact, be no rules as far as they are concerned.

They are just "getting stuff out there," how and when they want, being our competition but not observing our same rules of competition because, well...because they now can, and no one will care.

So yes, Mira, if we're going to mix with each other, and work the same events, but not use the same approaches to the work, then, yes, "the rules" have changed.

It is part of the new world in media in which the "old school" journalism approach does not necessarily apply anymore. It is all just part of the reason for all our angst over the past few years.

Once the new ways become prevalent, without regard for any of traditional journalism's rules, that angst, and any questions about all this, will disappear because everyone will again be playing by the same rules...or, in this case, the same lack of rules.

 

The rules of new media have changed. If they haven't, there wouldn't be alleged sex tapes of Brett Favre floating around the internet. Bloggers are about immediacy. The 24 hour news cycle is about immediacy. With reductions in news staffs and the outright elimination of copy desks, it's clear newspapers have little interest in accuracy anymore. Being first has trumped being right. Until traditional media outlets start focusing on the quality of their product again, no one in the traditional media has much room to complain.

 

Thanks, WT and rpm. I want to learn about processes and procedures and political correctness of new media.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here Mira. The question was asked if the rules have changed. They have. In a lot of ways, the rules have yet to be established. Aside from exclusive interviews with high school coaches, there is a question of privacy and boundaries when it comes to covering public figures. There are those in the new media who have no boundaries (TMZ, Deadspin, Huffington Post) Everything and everyone is free game. Traditional media has been following suit with little regard to discretion or sensitivity.
There are plenty of ways to get an exclusive interview. At the end of a game and on deadline is not the optimum time to assume one-on-one time.

 

I didn't think you were picking a fight, rpm. Sorry if it came across that way. I really do want to understand how new media work, deadline or not.

 

I covered a high school football game a couple weeks ago. Podunk High coach was on the field doing his post-game interview with the local radio station. I was just a few yards away waiting to talk to the coach myself and could hear their conversation. The coach ended up using a great quote in the radio interview so I jotted it down and used it in my story (it was actually my lead quote).

I guess I did pretty close to the same thing as the blogger. I didn't think twice about if I should or shouldn't have used the quote.