 |
|||||||||||
|
A Few Words About Allan Let Allan Help You Communicate Contact Allan |
By Month By Topic |
OPML File for the Blogs I Read |
Code of Blogging Ethics Creative Commons Deed Subscribe! A Few Words About the Blog |
||||||||
August 01, 2007Let's run Mathias Kobi Kabila (son of Laurent Desire Kabila) through the Scam-o-Matic, shall we?
Jeremy Wagstaff's recent Jakarta Post article "How to Lose Everything You've Got" recounts the woes of a poor man in India suckered by advance fee fraudsters. By now his relatives were losing patience. "By this time it was already seven to eight months (and) all the creditors started pressuring me for returning their loan amounts and they started to lose faith and confidence in me," he wrote. They started to call him a cheat. He was in hell: "My mental torture and agony knew no bounds." But it wasn't over. It was then that received an e-mail from the manager of the International Clearance department at Lloyds Bank asking him to send stg. 2,500 toward fund clearance fees. But there was no money left. Wagstaff concludes: It's easy to mock those who have fallen victim to such scams. But if you're new to the Internet, new to e-mail, if you've not received one of these scams before, you may easily believe your luck is about to change. True enough. And so why not mock those who perpetrate scams? And so the gem in Wagstaff's article is a link to the Scam-o-Matic, the work of Joe Wein, whose main object in life seems to be exposing fraudsters (may his tribe increase!). Wein also hosts the delightful 419eater.com Trophy Room, where scammers are baited by savvy marks to "prove their cred" by holding up ludicrous signs. God, I do love the Internet. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 01:49pm in Ethics, Scams | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0) July 16, 2007Debbie Weil. Alliconnect, astroturfing and the ethics of PR people... observations
The Debbie Weil - alliconnect - astroturfing flare-up grew a little too personal for my taste, so I am mostly happy to see the thing fade away. And it never should have flared up at all.... Debbie Weil just didn't know any better. See, what surprised me from the start was Weil's defense of her invitation to astroturf: "There's nothing underhanded about the email I sent, as I posted the same request publicly on my blog. And I didn't send it to a list of "prominent PR bloggers." Just a list of folks I know. It's not that big a deal. Bloggers - corporate and otherwise - use the backchannel of email all the time to communicate with one another." What kind of explanation is that? How she sent the invitation is, of course, irrelevant. But in reading the posts of those who criticized her effort and those of her (few) defenders, I suddenly realized what was up. Debbie Weil doesn't know astroturfing is wrong -- she doesn't work in PR or corporate communication, and doesn't realize astroturfing is a huge breach of ethics. And, pretty much down the line, her defenders are outside the communication profession and her critics are in it. Now, I know the general public ranks PR professionals fairly low, somewhere around lawyers and CEOs, but 99.9% of the PR professionals I've met take their ethics codes (PRSA's, for example, or IABC's) very seriously. Astroturfing is something we just don't do (and some are working actively against it), and we damned sure aren't shy about calling people on it when we catch them at it. But that works only if the other person should know better. Debbie Weil just doesn't. Well, that's alright then! Isn't it? Update: she should have gone to buyblogcomments.com. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 04:35pm in Advertising & PR, Communication, Ethics, Pharmaceutical Industry, PRSA, Public Relations | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (6) April 09, 2007Tim O'Reilly can eat my ethical shorts
As a natural anti-authoritarian, I am always irritated when one or several persons in a "cloud" decide the cloud needs organizing and they are the ones to do it. Who can forget the lamentable Pro-Bloggers Association, whose aim was to "accredit bloggers?" Or Nick Denton's idea to set up a "blog ethics committee?" And, now, another county heard from: Tim O'Reilly wants us to adopt his code of ethics -- and wear a badge. He wants us to either wear a "we play nice" badge or, if we cannot manage that, an "anything goes on our blog" badge. Nothing in between -- if you don't wear one of those badges, you are unethical and afraid to admit it. And he's serious enough to make the blogosphere jitter. Even Robert Scoble, not usually lacking in spine, decides: "So, for now, I guess I'd have to wear the "anything goes" badge. I do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with this program. Tim O'Reilly is a guy who really can affect one's career online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some pressure just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy." No, Robert, you don't have to wear no stinkin' badges. To give in to O'Reilly's hobbyhorse is to give in to every critic/skeptic of the Internet since the mid 90s: "it needs controlling...no one regulates it.... what if someone says.... people can say anything on the Innernet... " Don't do it. I make ethical judgements about what I write, and about what I allow others to write on my blog, every damned day. I think I do pretty good. My "badge," in other words, is Desirable Roasted Coffee. Read it... if you think I am ethical, keep reading. If you think I am unethical, don't read it.. and let me know. I don't need a badge to proclaim my honesty. If I did, you'd have every right to be skeptical. Tim O'Reilly....eat the Desirable Roasted Shorts and go set up your blogger police state somewhere else. We ain't wearin' no stinkin' badges. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 09:50pm in Ethics | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (4) March 28, 2007Kathy Sierra death threats are no basis for blogger code of conduct
Kathy Sierra, a prominent blogger, has received what she sees as death threats from other bloggers-- and takes them seriously enough to cancel speaking engagements and call on law enforcement. If you aren't already familiar with the story, I urge you to visit her post, which has attracted 1000+ comments in just a few days. But carry a strong stomach -- this is seriously ugly, offensive, putrid stuff. That some of the offenders -- or facilitators -- may include other famous bloggers simply makes the story worse. I am deliberately not linking to the alleged offenders/facilitators because, quite literally, this is a case for the police. But the inevitable calls for blogger codes of conduct miss the mark. Tim O'Reilly calls for one in a BBC interview, but with tens of millions of bloggers, in every country, he's farting in a hurricane. No code of conduct will ever be agreeable to all bloggers -- 99% will never hear of the topic, anyway -- and no code would ever be enforceable. I posted a Code of Blogging Ethics more than two years ago. That code gets a lot of traffic, and I hear, from time to time, that it inspires new bloggers. But I am particularly happy most read why I posted it. In it, I argue that any "code of blogging ethics" is pretty much a contract between the blogger and the reader -- enforceable by the reader's very powerful tool of dismissing the blog on the spot. At the time, I quoted Jeff Jarvis: "We don't need a committee. We don't need an authority figure or moral guidepost. "This is a distributed world, a world owned by the whole. We are ruled by the wisdom of the crowd." To that, I would add we are also ruled by law, another application of the wisdom of the crowd. The alleged offenses against Kathy are already covered by law, if they did happen. If I threaten to kill someone on this blog, Danish law is way ahead of any blogging code of conduct. If I let a comment threatening the same stand, the law is ready for me. If I encourage, tacitly or not, an environment where threats are made, the law is ready for me. The possible sanctions of the blogosphere pales in comparison. For that very reason, supporters of a collective blogger code of conduct overreach. You can legislate, set rules, set standards only in a closed group -- the sanction being punishment by the group or exclusion from it. The blogosphere hasn't the ability and never will. The sort of thing Kathy reports is disgusting. But there is law in place to punish it, if true, which is something no code of blogging conduct could ever do. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 07:37pm in Blogging, Desirable Roasted Coffee, Ethics, Law | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (2) August 29, 2006Ethics codes, ethics codes... what's Your Code of Ethics?
Ethics usually don't come up in conversation until someone commits an obviously unethical act. And even then, the conversation is often about what ethics code should be applied or appealed to. Well, folks, get a head start on the next ethics scandal by perusing the Your Code of Ethics blog. Created by writer & historian Irwin M. Berent, who also has a hundred or so other projects on his plate, the blog lists scores, perhaps hundreds, of ethics codes. Family codes, sports codes, codes of ethics in business, codes for bloggers,
NGOs, creative arts associations and parenting, codes from history... Berent is so thorough he has even included the Desirable Roasted Coffee Code of Blogging Ethics. While they all boil down to "Be nice; be honest", it's a fine resource. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:35pm in Ethics | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) April 30, 2006Robert Reich, former US Labor Secretary, kicks off blog by roasting PR pracitioner
Robert Reich, former US Secretary of Labor, started a blog three weeks ago. After a sort of rambling first post, he used the second post to rip GM's PR agency for trying to bribe him: "I just got off the phone with a guy who works in public affairs for
General Motors, asking me if I'd say publicly on the radio and TV that
GM's buyback deal for GM workers (GM will give a certain lump sum of
money to any worker who voluntarily quits) is a good deal for workers,
and promising a sum of money for me if I did so. I told him I'd say
nice things about the deal if I thought the deal was good and I'd
condemn it if I thought the deal was bad, and I wouldn't take a dime.
Frankly, I was offended that GM or anyone would think my opinion was
for sale. It's bad enough the Administration pays Armstrong Williams
and other columnists to support White House policy. Now, apparently
corporate America is paying pundits to shill for them." The New York Times picked up the story and identifies the blot on our profession as one Richard Strauss of Strauss Radio Strategies. Strauss calls himself "the nation's premier expert on radio public relations." According to the Times, Strauss blew off the accusation by Reich: "I may have mentioned the possibility of an honorarium" to Mr. Reich "out of
deference and respect to him and his position." Reich is still hasn't gotten his bloggin sea-legs yet... no RSS feed, no trackbacks, and really poor formatting ... but when smart guys like Reich blog, I can overlook baby steps. Hat tip to Mike at Forward for tipping me off. Update: Shel Holtz had a take on it, too, which I hadn't read when I posted. Technorati Tags:
robert reich, richard strauss, bribery, ethics, general motors Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:38pm in Ethics, People of Note, Politics, Public Relations | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (1) March 02, 2006Short update on the Sprint Ambassador diplomatic crisis
Still no reply to my email to "Bob" (you will remember I had to assign him a name) at Sprint. I do hope he will reply in such a way that I can restore diplomatic relations with Sprint and say "ok, we're friends again!" In the meantime, the estimable Mike Sansone at Copywriting Watch makes his own suggestion to Sprint on my behalf. It's lovely, and I wish I'd thought of it. And if Sprint takes him up on it, I will sing their praises to high heaven. That's what it's about, everyone (and I mean everyone!): market ethically (don't spam), but if you do mess up, apologize! And over deliver to your victim! It's an easy thing, and we have all seen it work a thousand times. Unfortunately, we still see it too little. So, Bob at Sprint Ambassador Team. If you take up Mike's suggestion, I will choose three of my friends back in the United States, all of whom could have stepped out of the pages of The Tipping Point, and you can make them ambassadors. I'll be happy, they will (that is, if you over deliver) be happy, and you will be happy. It's win-win-win for us all! Also, I've sent an email to Lori Joseph, a senior communicator at Sprint, prominent IABC leader, and former colleague of mine on IABC's board of directors. Since she's all about good corporate communication and marketing ethics -- and knows how to get things done -- I am sure all of this will be speedily and happily resolved. Technorati: Sprint, sprint ambassador, mike sansone, Copywriting Watch, diplomatic immunity, lame pitches Posted by Allan Jenkins at 02:14pm in Bizarre & Amusing, Communication, Ethics, Is Tedious in the House?, Marketing, Public Relations | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (3) November 22, 2005Weber Shandwick blogger will do fine after he learns playground etiquette
Weber Shandwick employee Robert J. Ricci has joined the PR blogosphere, welcomed by über-blogger Steve. I'm sure he' ll do well, once he adds RSS (so that people will actually read him) and once he learns the rules of the game, one of which is "avoid every appearance of lifting ideas from other PR bloggers without credit": Robert J. Ricci on November 19 in a post about Google Analytics: According to EU law, Web site owners who set cookies must not only alert their
visitors to the fact, but also explain how they're being used and how they can
be disabled. Swedish PR blogger Fredrik Wackå on the same topic the day before: According to Swedish and European Union law, it's illegal to set cookies without
telling people on the site that you do, what they're used for and how they can
be avoided. Come on... it's not a direct quote-lift, but the two are separated at birth. And Fredrik is the only PR blogger who had addressed the issue. It's an increasingly common phenomenon, and one that's getting a lot of discussion in private conversations around the PR blogosphere: One or two or three bloggers will post on a subject, and build a conversation. A few days later, a doyen or doyenne or wannabe will post on the same subject, with no credit, as if the idea struck him out the blue justlikethat. Maybe clients are fooled into believing you are brilliantly insightful, and maybe that's the point: but the rest of us aren't, so let's just stop it. Give credit when credit is due. Technorati Tags:
son of a pitch, weber shandwick, pr, public relations, ethics, google analytics Update: Ricci has now credited Wackå (see comments below). The "you" in the last paragraph of my post describes everyone lifting ideas and reworking them with no credit -- it does not refer to Ricci specifically. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 10:10am in Bloggers, Ethics, Public Relations | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (12) | TrackBack (1) November 10, 2005A democracy of groups: a tremendous article by Beth Simone Noveck
First Monday is one of the few peer-reviewed journals on the Internet, and is, as far as I know, the only one devoted entirely to the Internet. It was originally Danish, so I started reading it from Issue One, in May 1996, the articles of which were:
Electronic Cash and Monetary Policy
by Mark Bernkopf
The Social Life of Documents
by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid - introduction by Esther Dyson
Networked-centered is an oxymoron
by Rishab Ghosh
Law and Borders - The rise of law in Cyberspace by David R. Johnson and David Post
Corporate Metamorphosis: The Effects of the New Media by Sean Murphy Yep, in the first warm days of 1996, First Monday writers were looking at topics and ideas that, nine years later, are often just barely creeping into MSM. The November 2006 issue includes an article I want to recommend to Desirable Roasted Coffee readers. It's A Democracy of Groups, by Beth Simone Noveck at the New York Law School (she's the blogger at The Cairns Blog). It's about 40 pages long, and it's not written in the snappy style of Business 2.0. But it's a excellent examination of one reason why social media is compelling and essential. Here's the abstract: In groups people can accomplish what they cannot do alone. Now new
visual and social technologies are making it possible for people to
make decisions and solve complex problems collectively. These
technologies are enabling groups not only to create community but also
to wield power and create rules to govern their own affairs. Electronic
democracy theorists have either focused on the individual and the
state, disregarding the collaborative nature of public life, or they
remain wedded to outdated and unrealistic conceptions of deliberation.
This article makes two central claims. First, technology will enable
more effective forms of collective action. This is particularly so of
the emerging tools for "collective visualization" which will profoundly
reshape the ability of people to make decisions, own and dispose of
assets, organize, protest, deliberate, dissent and resolve disputes
together. From this argument derives a second, normative claim. We
should explore ways to structure the law to defer political and legal
decision–making downward to decentralized group–based decision–making.
This argument about groups expands upon previous theories of law that
recognize a center of power independent of central government: namely,
the corporation. If we take seriously the potential impact of
technology on collective action, we ought to think about what it means
to give groups body as well as soul — to "incorporate" them. This paper
rejects the anti–group arguments of Sunstein, Posner and Netanel and
argues for the potential to realize legitimate self–governance at a
"lower" and more democratic level. The law has a central role to play
in empowering active citizens to take part in this new form of
democracy. I have only read the first few pages, and have no choice but to print the whole thing out and read it this weekend. So far, excellent. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 10:07pm in Civil Liberty, Communication, Ethics, Law, Smart Communities, Social Tools, Writing I Enjoy | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0) September 22, 2005Hugh McLeod & Ben Metcalfe Take the Gloves Off and Begin Thrashing One Another
It's got drama, fighting words, studied insults, and an audience baying for blood. It's the Hugh McLeod vs. Ben Metcalfe knock-down, drag out. And it's playing simultaneously at Ben's and at Hugh's. As most of the free world probably already knows, Hugh is using his blog to promote Stormhoek Wine, just as he promotes Thomas Mahon's bespoke suits. His belief that social media can be used to launch global microbrands has many observers and -- including Desirable Roasted Coffee -- more than a few believers. Ben thinks Hugh's promotion of Stormhoek is unseemly, even distasteful. And said so, calling the wine "crappy" and Hugh's promotion of it "pimping". Hugh fired back with one of his trademark cards -- I never want to be a target of one of those -- and called Ben an apparatchnik of "socialist media". Yikes. Let the fur fly! The spat has generated about 40 comments between the two sites. And while the boys are grudgingly making nice again, the core issue remains. Is it seemly to use blogs to market products (especially using free samples)? Is marketing in keeping with the spirit of social media. I'm 100% with Hugh's principles on this: what on earth is wrong with marketing using one's status in the blogosphere? It may well backfire on Hugh one day, but I see little that is unseemly or unethical about trying it. And the other side of the argument -- that the blogosphere should be non-commercial -- is just plain silly. But opinion seems sharply divided -- and I don't think this debate will die anytime soon. The discussion continues here and here. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 05:03pm in Bizarre & Amusing, Blogging for Benjamins, Ethics, Food and Drink, In Defense of Elitism, Marketing | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (4) | TrackBack (1) September 19, 2005Trying Out the Wisdom of Crowds
"Summer Reading" is usually more of a wish than an accomplishment. But I managed a lot this summer; indeed my June Amazon shipment is wholly depleted. I like to read two or three related books in tandem, for the joy of serendiptity. That doesn't always work, but in July it did, and in a odd corner: how crowds, individuals, and society collaborate and "know". The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes businesses, economies, societies and nations. James Surowiecki. Short take: a collection of people with ordinary knowledge will generally make better decisions than any expert. The Company of Strangers: A natural history of economic life. Paul Seabright. Short take: Most primates are only minimally social. Man figured out reciprocal trust, which allows anonymous transactions. Blink. Malcolm Gladwell. Short take: if you know (about) what you are seeing, your first instinct is is the right one. If you stop to analyze, you may well go wrong. I won't give longer reviews; all three have been reviewed to death, by better critics. A common theme: Surowiecki and Seabright both support the idea that "financial" markets, composed of independent "traders" are better predictors of future results than TV pundits. One of the markets they cite is NewsFutures, where a punter can "bet" on outcomes of current events: Will Schroeder stay on as German Chancellor? Will a hurricane hit Texas before November 30? Will John Roberts be confirmed? The thinking is that players, who have definite, though small, financial incentives to bet correctly, will, as a group, bet correctly. No individual will have the "answer". But the collective smarts of 20,000 individuals, with money or rewards at stake, should be a good guide. As an example, let me show you where I am. I have a stake in NewsFutures. Here was my status a few hours ago: As you can see, I'm backing Schroeder heavily to be re-elected Cerman chancellor. I'm spitting in the wind, obviously, but the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish papers -- all of whom traditionally have very, very good sources in Berlin, are tipping a Schroeder government. Right? Wrong? I don't know. The "market" seems to think I am wrong (but since I took this screen shot, the shares have jumped from X$9 to X$29... as the US papers start to pick up on the European analysis.) I also have a stake in Yahoo's TechBuzz Game. Here, I am on less solid ground, since I am not privy to tech buzz. But I have spotted a hole: there's a hurricane market. Meteorology fascinates me; and weather that affects the South deeply concerns me. So here I've confidently invested in Rita and Stan (who doesn't exist, yet). Rita is going to be all over the papers for a week or more. Stan will or won't develop. Still, I won't lose much by giving him a wager. Now, if you've stayed with me this far, you may be thinking one of two things: What are the moral implications of "betting" on hurricane strikes (or whatever)? None, that I can see. I don't cause a hurricane strike; indeed, if it looks like the hurricane will die out, I'll take the other position. I've flipped on the Schroeder thing twice. I lost my butt on Phillippe. Takeaway: the market is heartless & makes better decisions when it is heartless. But you aren't affecting anything. Nope, just reacting with great interest. Takeaway: the "market", given its incentives, is a better news gatherer than any professional news gatherer. I have a lot of links to fill in here, and will do so over the next day. In the meantime, a Google Search will probably get you where you are going Posted by Allan Jenkins at 07:56pm in Books, Communication, Desirable Roasted Coffee, Ethics, Gadgets & Toys, Smart Communities, Social Tools, Society | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (1) July 21, 2005Michael O'Connor Clarke Lifts the Veil on Agency Billing
Michael O'Connor Clarke continues his "Seven Deadly Agency Types" series, this time skewering the "If it Moves, Bill it!" Syndrome: "Irregular, creative, or downright unethical billing
practices are the dirty secret in too many PR agencies. Some of them don’t even
realise they’re doing it – or they just don’t recognize that what they’re doing
would, at best, raise serious questions were their clients to find out." "In one agency I knew, a senior executive who spent a good part of every day
playing solitaire at her desk would routinely add an hour of time every month to
each of the firm’s client accounts – whether or not she’d actually contributed
anything of value. This was described, when challenged, as “conventional
executive oversight”." Yikes! An entertaining, useful, and all-too-true account... Posted by Allan Jenkins at 11:00am in Corporate Management, Ethics, Public Relations | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0) July 19, 2005Evelyn Rodriquez Dispenses Sound Advice to Dot's Flowers
After a bit of vacation with visiting family, I'm returning to my post here at Desirable Roasted Coffee. I'll be catching up over the next couple of days. Just before I went silent, I read Evelyn Rodriquez's post Dot's Flowers: Lack of Ethics? How About Lack of Imagination?. Like many in the blogosphere, Evelyn was offended by Dot's Flowers payoff to bloggers like Jeff Cutler: ''No more driving
to the corner to buy flowers and hand-deliver them,"[Cutler] wrote on his
Web page. ''Nope. Now I go online to places like Dot Flowers.com and
1-800-Flowers. I like Dot a little better just because of the personal
touch." - Jeff Cutler's quote, "For a fee, some blogs boost firms", Boston Globe, June 26, 2005 (thanks Tom for the tip!) Nice recommendation any company would certainly cherish. This particular referral was made by blogger Jeff Cutler on his blog April 8th.
Jeff's never actually ordered anything from Dot's. And he was paid $5
by Dot's ad agency USWeb for the blog mention, which he neglects to
disclose. Evelyn is surprised at the banality of it all: I'm too jaded to be appalled by lack of ethics, but I am amazed by the lack of imagination.
But Evelyn goes on to demonstrate why she "gets it" (as if that's ever been in doubt): What are some alternatives? There's plenty. Here's an off-the-cuff one for starters. Flowers are given during major life events like weddings and funerals
and as symbolic gestures that signify 'I'm thinking of you.' They're
given on special heart-felt occasions to people you're close to or
would like to be closer to: you give them to your date at your prom,
your partner of twenty-five years, your Mom on her birthday, your
cousin on their graduation from law school. These are usually
emotion-filled moments ripe with compelling story potential circling
the biggies in people's lives. I'm not clear on the campaign's budget (let's say it was 2000 X $5 =
$10000). You could announce a story contest spread over the next six to
twelve months. Award $50 gift certificate for up to 200 bloggers on
their best 'flower moment' stories. Real stories from real people. The
certificate gives bloggers a chance to establish a real relationship with Dot's Flowers. The stories can encompass all sorts of universal "I'm thinking of you" moments. There's more and it's all good. The point, of course, is that companies lame themselves by trying to use blogs and bloggers without a modicum of insight and imagination. Thanks Evelyn! Posted by Allan Jenkins at 03:30pm in Desirable Roasted Coffee, Ethics, Management, Marketing | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (2) | TrackBack (0) July 06, 2005Dan Gillmor Wants Bloggers to Sign his Ethics Pledge... Will This Meme Never Die?
I hate to be churlish (well...), but the idea of a collective Ethics Pledge for Bloggers has reared its hoary head -- again. This time at the instigation of none other than Dan Gillmor. Writing at his Bayosphere effort, Gillmor urges bloggers to pledge to work in the interests of the community, be fair, be accurate... blah blah blah. Jeff Jarvis rips the idea, saving me the trouble (Jarvis also saved our bacon by pooh-poohing Nick Denton's idea for a collective blogger ethics code, as I discussed in December). Among other points, Jarvis notes: He requires us to promise to "work in the community interest." What
community? What interest? Who's to say what the community interest is?
I can only guarantee that I will post in my interest; whether I post in
the community's interest, the community will have to decide. He requires that I be "fair: I'm always listening to and taking
account of other viewpoints." No, there are some viewpoints I will not
take into account and not listen to. I won't listen to trolls I've put
on my ignore list. I won't listen to terrorist sympathizers. I know
that's not what Dan and company are asking with this, but others would.
This is the issue with such a pledge: It's open to such varying
interpretation: Someone will say gotcha, you didn't listen to people
who hate America. And I will say: Damned straight, I won't. Undaunted, Gillmor urges us to use Honor Tags. Even the estimable Steve Rubel climbs aboard. Here at Desirable Roasted Coffee, we keep a pot of Ethics on the stove at all times, so we won't be signing any damned collective pledges or adding honor tags in the near future. No, ma'am! Posted by Allan Jenkins at 03:25pm in Bizarre but Expected, Citizen Journalism, Ethics, Is Tedious in the House? | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (5) | TrackBack (0) May 27, 2005Becker-Posner See No Need for Blogger Ethics Codes, but Argue for Sales-Tax on E-Commerce
Desirable Roasted Coffee's Code of Blogging Ethics is voluntary (and applies to this site only). I wrote it partly in response to Nick Denton's call for a formal blog ethics committee (seconded by Jason Calacanis), a call that I considered and consider naive and unworkable. This week on the Becker-Posner Blog, US Circuit Judge Richard Posner and Nobel-prize winning economist Gary Becker argue that exempting bloggers from formal and voluntary ethics rules makes sound economic sense. Posner notes: "...the argument is that since the mainstream media have adopted ethical
standards concerning such matters as reliance on anonymous sources and
retraction of errors (with electronic media such as television stations
subject to formal regulation), so should bloggers. "Nevertheless I think this “exemption” of blogging from the ethical
standards applicable to the mainstream media makes good economic sense
because of economic and technological differences between those media
and the 'blogosphere'." I paraphrase his reasons: In short, no "cost" is borne by society by the lack of a common code of blogging ethics. Posner does argue, though, that the law banning sales-tax imposts on e-commerce distorts the market and imposes a externality on society. Becker agrees on both counts. The posts are the sort of 2000+ word full-feeds that may drive you to distraction if you are in a fast-food frame of mind. But if you want some mind-candy to noodle over this weekend, I highly recommend Posner's post and Becker's reply. What do you all think? Do we need a blogging code of ethics? Do we want sales-tax on e-commerce? Link: The Becker-Posner Blog: Blogging, Spam, and the Taxation of Internet Transactions—Posner. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:35pm in Citizen Journalism, Economics, Ethics, Journalism, Law, Online Media | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0) May 09, 2005NYT's Adam Cohen Calls for Better Code of Blogging Ethics
Adam Cohen's editorial in Sunday's New York Times will almost certainly cause writhing and gnashing of teeth in the blogosphere. But the offended, when they calm down, should re-read the piece closely. Cohen is sometimes off-base. But his point is sound: bloggers, in attacking mainstream media (IMSM) -- must keep ethical standards that at least meet MSM's ethical standards. (Yes, I am aware that the New York Times, CBS, Washington Post, etc, have had ethics lapses, but another's failings are no excuse for one's own). Most -- let us say 95% -- bloggers could have the ethics of an alley-cat without anyone knowing the difference. But the most-read 5% have influence, however minor, in their profession, hobby, political party. And those at the very top? If Ana Marie Cox, Duncan Black and Josh Marshall don't have huge readership on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, who does? Cohen writes: "The thing about influence is that, as bloggers well know, it is only a
matter of time before people start trying to hold you accountable.
Bloggers are so used to thinking of themselves as outsiders, and
watchdogs of the LSM (that's Lame Stream Media), that many have given
little thought to what ethical rules should apply in their online
world. Some insist that they do not need journalistic ethics because
they are not journalists, but rather activists, or humorists, or
something else entirely. But more bloggers, and blog readers, are
starting to ask whether at least the most prominent blogs with the
highest traffic shouldn't hold themselves to the same high standards to
which they hold other media." He concludes: "Bloggers may need to institutionalize ethics policies to avoid charges
of hypocrisy. But the real reason for an ethical upgrade is that it is
the right way to do journalism, online or offline. As blogs grow in
readers and influence, bloggers should realize that if they want to
reform the American media, that is going to have to include reforming
themselves." Cohen's piece goes to the heart of the "Are Bloggers Journalists?" discussion, since bloggers can't have it both ways. Courts are unlikely to allow "But I'm a reporter" claims when the blogger, on cross-examination, admits to not getting two or more sources, checking facts, revealing payments, etc. These bloggers will quickly learn that being a "reporter" has, in fact, little to do with a title, but much to do with adhering to standards. Cohen calls for bloggers to publish ethics codes. Why not? It's easy to do. I published the Desirable Roasted Coffee Code of Blogging Ethics -- a contract with readers -- because I believe to have a readership is a privilege, and a trust. Influential bloggers are far more privileged -- and the trust is greater. Pledging to a code of ethics wouldn't be a bad move for them. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 08:31am in Bloggers, Citizen Journalism, Desirable Roasted Coffee, Ethics, Journalism, Online Media | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0) March 16, 2005It Would Have Redefined Blogging: Wright's On a Roll
Jeremy Wright is having one hell of a year.... Last year, he was hired for blogging, but this year allegedly got fired for it. Then he apparently was hired again for blogging. He later claimed that US officials prevented him from entering the US , thus losing him a US$ 20,000 contract that would "redefined blogging". UPDATE: I've heavily edited my original post. Like many bloggers, I relayed the story without questioning it. FURTHER UPDATE: Shelley Powers smells something fishy about Jeremy's story; indeed says she is "99.99 sure... it is completely fabricated." She raised the issue on her Burningbird blog, but the discussion is happening over at Joi Ito's place. FINAL UPDATE: After a few emails with Jeremy, I have my own doubts about many parts of the story. And few certainties. What "really happened" to Jeremy will never be known unless he presses for official facts to be released -- which he refuses to do. Until then, it's his word against.... well, nothing. I apologize to Desirable Roasted Coffee readers for passing on the story without being far more critical. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:09pm in Desirable Roasted Coffee, Ethics, Mea Culpas & Outright Retractions | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (1) February 21, 2005OJR Weighs in on Blogger Ethics
Online Journalism Review's J.D. Lasica asks: "The latest issue thrust before the tribunal of blog opinion: What are the rules when commercial entities offer payments or freebies to get bloggers to write about them?" Call me straitlaced, but it seems to me that if you have to ask this question, you aren't ready for civil society. The credibility of bloggers is fragile, rooted in only the shallowest of soil. The medium is immature; only a few bloggers (1%? 0.5%?) can claim any influence or ask to be called "serious." So it seems to me that accepting payments and not disclosing them is the definition of recklessness. Or as Stowe Boyd says: “When you have a conversation with a friend or trusted associate, you shouldn’t have to wonder in the back of your mind, ‘Has he been paid to say that?’” Boyd said. “You’re automatically diluting and squandering your trust by putting your editorial content up for bid.” Posted by Allan Jenkins at 07:36pm in Citizen Journalism, Ethics | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (0) January 25, 2005PBA: I'm still not convinced, but hey...
A week ago, I posted about the embryonic Professional Bloggers Association and why I believe the idea is poor. "Let's hope this meme dies an early death, and we communicators can go
back to advising clients without pretending to be high priests of a
secret art." Since then, some of the members of the group have replied on their own blogs, while other observers have made their own notes. I believe a follow-up is in order. None of the respondents addressed my main concern, which is that such a group can hardly credibly "credential" "professional" bloggers. It's simply not in a position to do this and never will be. Why? First, because plenty of people are already out there lucratively beavering away at explaining how blogs can fit into the comms mix. I advise clients who are embracing blogging as an extension of their other communication, and I know that Holtz, Hobson, Albrycht, Edelman, Pizzo, Shinbach, Ochman, and the folks at JKL (and these are just people on the top of my blogroll) are out there advising clients, too. Presumably for money, which would make us all, ipso facto, professionals. And I'm sure 100 others, or a 1000, are out there. I simply seriously doubt anyone is going to slow any of that group down by tapping them on the shoulder and saying, "Excuse me, but... you aren't actually a credentialed professional blogger." And, if anyone had the chutzpah to do that, then what? Anyone going to make Edelman take a blogging test? Or, worse, go to a client and say "I know you are considering the Edelman group, but just remember... they aren't credentialed professional bloggers." Second, being labled a "professional blogger" is, to my mind, like being labeled a "professional Webmaster" or "professional sender of corporate faxes". To adopt it as a title is a lot like a cabinetmaker giving up that title and limiting herself to "user of saws". The communicators I'm familiar with have a) noted that websites have finally evolved into a fairly usable, easily edited form, with the added benny of RSS, commenting, and trackbacks, and b) added that form -- the blog -- to the consulting toolbox. I hope the lack of response on this issue is because the PBA founders are also realizing that credentialing -- along with setting up a Blogging Chamber of Commerce -- is a lost cause. Indeed, the organization's website makes no mention of the ideas, though Chaney's blog advocates both. The other desire of the group is to "set standards". "And, I think, we need a group to advocate, set up some kind of
guidelines, ethics, whatever." It's this very vagueness -- the "whatever" -- that make this idea not ready for prime time. Guidelines? For what? Can anyone -- more to the point, would anyone -- go to a client with a list of blogging communication guidelines? Sure, success and failure are teaching us what the rules of thumb are, and long experience in communication pretty much points the way, anyway. But can any group of 20 -- anywhere -- reliably set down Guidelines for Corporate Blogging? Ethics? But all the professionals I listed above are already enjoined from unethical behavior by association codes of ethics. The Ketchum debacle shows professional ethics codes can go by the wayside; it also, though, shows that loss of professional reputation is a far harsher sanction. Whatever? Yes, exactly... a vague idea that "blogging" needs to be corralled, tamed and harnessed somehow. The "why" left undefined because... well, because there is no "why." At the end, the PBA's greatest contribution may be education of one another. Less than a month ago, Paul Chaney realized that reading blogs is pretty much a requirement for having a blog: "OK. You've convinced me its time I get my blogroll in order and
start reading blogs everyday. I have no clue as to where I'll find the
time, as I already work 14-16 hour days (Boo-hoo-hoo), but I'm going to
do it. Frankly, I'm not sure I really see the point in it except that
everybody else is doing it, so it must be a good practice. Guess I'll
find out. Sleep is a highly-overrated commodity anyway." Surely that's worth a few points towards the credential. And, hey... no one suggests Webmaster Guilds anymore, so this, too, shall pass. Posted by Allan Jenkins at 06:50pm in Blogging, Communication, Ethics | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (5) | TrackBack (1) January 18, 2005Pro Bloggers Association? Let this meme die quickly.
Paul Chaney at Radiant Marketing Group thinks it would be a swell idea to create a Professional Bloggers Association, and he's looking for help. Let's hope this little meme dies quickly. "without attempting to sound high-minded or self-congratulatory, one thing know is that I have something important to do -- build a trade association to promote the common interests of those who make their living in some blog-related field, whether it be professional blog writers (those are especially near and dear to my heart), business blog consultants, blog designers, or platform developers to name a few SIGs." How that's going to help anyone is yet unclear since the nascent force is still "developing its mantra". But Chaney argues for "credentialing" of bloggers because, god knows, with 5 million or so out there, how's a client going to separate the wheat from the chaff? "Why do I feel an association is important? Because this industry is
in its infancy, I believe its going to need some type of credentialing
agency to give it greater credibility, and to increase visibility. "An agency such as this could provide not only information, education and training opportunities, but networking and jobs as well." Yes, there's our updated Webmaster Guild. Chaney is not stopping with just a guild, though: "Out of this group the Business Blog Chamber of Commerce could be formed. That organization could include membership of anyone who uses a blog in their business." The astonishing... it's the word that comes springing to mind... thing about this is that he's enlisted Steve Rubel, Amy Gahran, Jeremy Wright, and HHHH into this.... Let's hope this meme dies an early death, and we communicators can go back to advising clients without pretending to be high priests of a secret art. Read more "Pro Bloggers Association? Let this meme die quickly." Posted by Allan Jenkins at 11:17pm in Blogging, Communication, Ethics | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (0) | TrackBack (4) December 12, 2004Why a Code of Blogging Ethics at Desirable Roasted Coffee?
(Note: I had intended to post this at the same time as the actual code, but a lovely weekend with friends intervened). Why post a Code of Blogging Ethics at Desirable Roasted Coffee? Recently, friend Shel Holtz wrote about the the dark side of blogging
-- when bloggers deceive readers. It is a thoughtful post, and one
can't read it and just look away again. Ethical questions (and legal
ones) about blogging are popping up all over. And press and public
believe that some, many, most, all bloggers are the border ruffians of
cyberspace, with little interest in facts and without the moral
underpinnings for fairness. Over the last month, several influential bloggers have called for Codes of Ethics. Nick Denton suggests a Blog Ethics Committee. "Maybe
it's time that we rely, not on a volunteer watchdog, but on some sort
of permanent institution. So I'm going to grit my teeth, and make a
proposal: that a blog ethics committee be established." Holtz's HC+T Update November echoes this: "Perhaps
an informal opt-in program would serve as a needed first step. All
that's required is a statement of an ethical code posted to a Web site
where those who agree to abide by the code download a logo to appear on
their sites asserting that "This blog adheres to the Blogger Code of
Ethics," or some similar language. Violations could be reported to some
volunteer body that reviews the complaints with the power to revoke the
right to use the logo." "As blogging's influence grows ... somebody somewhere needs to take a first step." I
can't ride that train, since I distrust authority on reflex (let me
digress briefly to say I found it juxtapositionally-delicious that Scoble blogged my Code just next to the story about Barlow's Troubles with the Man).
Moreover, the vast majority of the world's 5 million bloggers are
utterly unaware of this discussion and probably would never learn of
the existence of a central Blogging Ethics Committee (and would be
bemused that it was watching them if they did). Luckily for me, Jeff Jarvis (who Denton wanted to enlist in the effort, and who refused) pushed my thinking, and gets us all off the central authority hook, by arguing: "We don't need a committee. We don't need an authority figure or moral guidepost. "This is a distributed world, a world owned by the whole. We are ruled by the wisdom of the crowd." I
think that's the best I or anyone can do, at least until some sort of
distributed "referral and rating" system is developed. By posting a
Code of Blogging Ethics that applies only to Desirable Roasted Coffee,
I can promise my readers what my blog's moral guidepost is. And they
can measure my words against that pledge, as they also measure my words
for relevance and usefulness. If I'm useful, relevant, and keep to my
moral compass when I write, then I hope readers will stay. Failing on
those points will certainly drive them away, as I am driven from blogs
that fail me. In short, my Central Blog Ethics Committee (And my
Central Blog Relevance and Usefulness Committee) is you, reader, and
your sanction will be swift and unsparing. It always is. Shel asks if he can sign on to my code.
No, he can't -- my promise to readers is a personal one. But if he
likes my code enough, I'd be honored if he lifted it, published it, but
called it Code of Blogging Ethics at a shel of my former self. Or he
could tweak it to fit his values. Or he could use it as inspiration for
something entirely different that would be his. The same goes for
anyone who reads this, of course. Credit where credit is due. In
thinking about the Code of Blogging Ethics at Desirable Roasted Coffee,
I was heavily influenced (as I have always tried to be in my writing)
by my college journalism professor, Bob Bristow, whose mantra was
"Check your facts, be fair, be straight with your readers, editors, and
sources." I also read and was freely inspired by: Charlene Li's wiki and its links Update (16 December 2004): ran across Blog Ethics Analysis 2004, where Martin Kuhn seeks to apply the thinking of Rawls, Ross, and Kant to the ethics of blogging (via Sandhill Trek). Posted by Allan Jenkins at 09:50pm in Citizen Journalism, Desirable Roasted Coffee, Ethics | Permalink | Comments Welcome! (1) | TrackBack (2) | |||||||||||
Scam-o-Matic lets you run suspected scam-mails against Wein's database and get an instant readout on the probability that "
