Blogger Ethics 2: The Other Side

When I started writing yesterday's post about the Leitch-Cuban saga, I was not exactly sure whose side I would end up on in the end. Though it may seem like I am villainizing Leitch, and I admit I may have been harsh, in reality I was torn about the issue and looking for views nd feedback from the community. And oh did I get it. While J-Red's comment in support of Leitch is the only one available to the public at this point, I did get some views on both sides in private (the anonymity of which will not be compromised).

To show that I really am not sure of my opinion on the matter, I will write a similarly scathing post for the other side of the discussion, in true debater form.

In terms of journalistic integrity, I would agree wholeheartedly with J-Red. I remember reading someting Rick Reilly wrote maybe a year ago when he said, "If somebody says, 'This is off the record, not even without attribution,' then I usually say, 'Then don't tell me. Because I might get it later from somebody else and you'll think I ratfinked on you.' That makes life simpler."

In essence this is J-Red's point exactly. If you say something to a reporter, you should expect it to be published.

There is no reason why this shouldn't be the same for a blogger, and rather possibly should be more of the case. Nothing is off the record for us because blogs, often defined as public conversations or diaries, are often just musings.

For argument's sake, let's consider Will Leitch, the GQ columnist, and Will Leitch, the blogger, as separate people. The GQ columnist was sent on an assignment to conduct a face-to-face interview with Mark Cuban. He completes his assignment completely professionally and even tells Cuban about his alter-ego, the blogger, the existence of which did not stop Cuban from giving the interview. Meanwhile, the blogger is listening to the interview, picking up on interesting tidbits to include in his blog.

The post in question does not contain any information that would be only available to the GQ reporter, only a quote from Cuban that was published in the article. Otherwise, it seemed to be just another opinion piece about Cuban that happened to be written by someone who interviewed him a while earlier. If the post were written by someone else, taking away the lead-in, which only serves to introduce the subject, there would be no discussion. So what is the problem here exactly? In other words, what does Mark Cuban want the statute of limitations for this to be (how long before Will Leitch is allowed to blog anything about Cuban again)? One month? Six months? Forever?

Cuban's attempted purchase of the Cubs is a major issue in sports right now (well, maybe it's just a little more than an afterthought), and Leitch's interview with him provided an appropriate stimulus for a post. Not making that post would be ignoring his duty as a blogger, which is to imbibe us, the readership, with all the information and analysis that he has, which the MSM either does not want to or just does not give us. This is not a question of ethics, simply of responsibility.

Blogger Ethics

Mark Cuban, the oft outspoken owner of the Dallas Mavericks, wrote a post today stating that he gave an interview for a journalist to put in a magazine, but that journalist, who has a second life as a sports blogger decided to turn that around and write a blog post about it as well.

The question he raised is one of ethics. Was it right for the blogger in question (in this case, a certain Will Leitch) to basically obtain an interview with a prominent figure under false pretenses? The post he wrote was not by any means laudatory, and maybe that's why Cuban had a problem with it, but nevertheless, he agreed to an interview with GQ, not with Valleywag (the sister site of DeadSpin).

A point to be made here is that if there is one thing that bloggers are not, it's journalists. This is the information age and bloggers are capable about opining about basically everything that the national media conglomerates wouldn't touch. We are the heralded party here, especially within our little circle. That does not mean however, that we do not have rules.

McD made a post yesterday about morals: how bloggers have them and journalists often do not. While Leitch's post may not have necessarily been a personal attack on Cuban, which is what McD was speaking out against, but it does show a certain lack of integrity.

If there's one thing that all of us bloggers can come together about is that we want mainstream media to take us more seriously. It hurts when Stephen A. Smith says that bloggers shouldn't be allowed an audience, because we, as writers, know how much time and effort is spent on making our respective sites as reputable as possible. As of right now, we are definitely gaining ground with more and more sponsored sites (ESPN's Truehoop and AOL Fanhouse come to mind) popping up. If that's ever going to happen entirely, we need to change the image of the prototypical blogger (loser in his parent's basement), and swindling an interview is not how to go about doing that.

I should have thought of this

Photo by Flickr user steve9567 used under a Creative Commons license

The New York Times Magazine ran a question this week from a puzzled intern that read like this:

A journalism major at college, I was delighted to land an internship at a national magazine. My editor asked me to post comments on one of the magazine’s online blogs, being sure not to mention my working for the magazine but to write in a style that suggests I’m a reader. That felt dirty to me. Advice? — Nick McCarvel, Seattle

It was later revealed by Jim Romenesko via MDS on AOL Fanhaus that the magazine in question was Tennis Magazine.

I think we all know that the editors of said magazine need some lessons in integrity and ethics. But it's not like the Tennis Magazine blog is some fledgling source that is trying to cement itself as a newsworthy site (as yours truly may be). I feel like the extra comments were kind of unneeded in their case.

Next thing we know, we'll hear that all of the trolls on the ESPN message boards are actually just Sean Salisbury and Michael Kim trying to incite conversation...