(This diary entry is worthy of further debate, hence its promotion to the front page.)
Is there such a thing?
From Kos in an exchange with Campaign Desk:
Blogs are the wild west of the media world. They are journalistic outlaws. We can gleefully police traditional media based on the rules they have set for themselves, even as we equally gleefully flaunt those rules.
Understandable, so far. Anytime a new voice is found for people who were unable to reach their audience before, they're going to use it however they best see fit, until they feel pressure to do otherwise.
As such, the concept of "ethics" doesn't really apply. We cater exclusively to our readers, in a way that traditional media outlets can never match (what with the quaint but unattainable quest for fairness and balance). As such, our readers draw our boundaries. If my readership was outraged about my running exit polls, then I would stop. And while a handful of people were upset, the vast majority approved (and "rewarded" me with out-of-control traffic).
Should we give up any goals of presenting a balanced view of current events, and merely be a sounding board for the opinions of our chosen target markets? I fail to see how that would do anything but polarize the public even further. It occurs to me that the concept of catering to the readers "in a way that traditional media outlets can never match" sounds a lot like "we're just telling them what they want to hear".
The question of blog ethics is more confusing, since they inevitably seem to reflect the personal ethics of the blogger, rather than adopting the greater responsibility of a public news outlet. Are blogs a personal soapbox that are immune from traditional journalistic standards (the theory, not the practice)? Or should bloggers self-censor on issues that may detrimentally affect public behavior (i.e. early exit poll data)?
My personal fear is that even as they grow, bloggers will primarily be self-serving in order to keep their audience entertained, and consequently will be viewed as opportunistic and blatantly biased compared to other media outlets. That doesn't sound like a very noble goal for the "new media".