Media Matters' mission is to monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. While what counts as "correcting" misinformation is
worthy of discussion, Media Matters seem to suggest that they want us to help. We are urged to "Take Action" by
contacting the offending outlet or network. I think four improvements can be made to this "contacting" effort.
First, I can see no good reason (except those below...) why Media Matters should not broadcast more specific contact information to ensure that all protest calls on a given item reach one specific individual person with the authority to address the problem. I'm not talking about the general switchboard, and I'm not talking about a general "complaint line" or, worse, complaint address. See below for more improvements and what this has to do with the ethics of activism...
A correction is a kind of change, and change from the status quo requires incentive, and short of financial incentive, this requires personal accountability.
We need to hold regular individuals (not just O'Reilly et al. who thrive on it) accountable for the misinformation their companies generate.
Here's an example of what a Media Matters call to action looks like:
Take Action!
Contact information:
Associated Press
Associated Press
The Associated Press
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001
Main Number
+1-212-621-1500
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future. Emphasis added
This brings me to my second suggestion. A protester should not just (a) express her concerns, (b) indicate exactly what should be done differently in the future, but also (c) demand an actual in-medium correction, as well as (d) request an explanation for why the misinformation was published, and, if applicable, (e) demand (politely) an explanation for why a correction has not already been made, and, finally, again, if applicable, (f)require that a correction be made promptly, precisely, and prominently.
Third, did you see that little impact tracking thing in MoveOn.org's email thanking you for signing the censure petition? They want us to report back on contacting our senators. They want to know what we said and what response we got. Media Matters should figure out how to implement some analogous tool for getting protesters to report back to Media Matters on their actions and what response they got.
Four, in order to make this activity more exciting and live-thready, protester feedback (what did you do and what did the Media-Matters-designated accountable person say) should also be encouraged in the comment section to each Media Matters item.
This then brings me to my question of what obligations protesters tracking their impact by way of blogging have toward that accountable person. In this case, the person's name is associated with the item, according to my first suggestion for improvements, above. Anyone reporting back on their protest in the thread is, to use a controversial phrase, in effect quoting that person. For instance, what obligations, if any, toward the accountable person should the protester meet in order for that to be OK? I'm looking for answers that either consider the pros and cons, protest-wise for developing a code of ethics for these interactions, as well as answers that simply consider what obligations we have to each other as people in these circumstances.
I'm also interested in whether there are instances when the accountable person (designated so by Media Matters, or, to consider the issue more broadly, by a front pager or a diarist here) may forfeit any obligations toward her that the protesters might otherwise have. Ex. Assuming we agree that you cannot quote the person without asking her permission (and I'm not sure we will agree on that), if she calls you a nasty name, can you then quote her without asking her permission? Is there a complicated calculus of ethics here or is it simple: two wrongs don't make a right?
Please weigh in.