On the morning of July 15, 1974 talk show host and media personality Christine Chubbuck confused her co-workers by claiming she needed to read a newscast on her morning program Suncoast Digest. The confusion lied in the fact that she had never done something like this before. Three weeks prior to this incident, she asked the station’s news director if she could cover a news piece on suicide. After being approved, she began to make jokes around the station that she herself was contemplating ways to end her own life as a reaction to her own piece. Her copy even made a speculative report of her plan to kill herself. Eight minutes into her program, when a planned film reel jammed and wouldn’t run, she made the immortal statement, “In keeping with Channel 40’s policy of bringing you the latest in blood and guts, and in living color, you are going to see another first: an attempted suicide.” She then proceeded to draw a revolver and shot herself in the head, fell forward, and the camera slowly faded to black, a symbolic representation of her demise coming to fruition. Perhaps the most shocking part of the story is that even the camera crew thought, at first, that it was all an elaborate prank to garner ratings.
As far removed as this may seem in a contemporary media setting, her story stands a kind of tragic legacy, inspiring a younger generation of mass media enthusiasts to follow suit. Stimulated by Chubbuck’s story, a young blogger, known only as “90-Day Jane,” Garnered much attention in recent months when she created a blog space based on the premise that for 90 days she would write one entry each day, leading up to her inevitable death.
Understandably, this blog caused reactions ranging from concern to absolute disgust. One reaction on the blog itself reads, “You are such an attention whore.” “90-Day Jane” notes, “I didn’t expect this kind of response. To be honest, I’m kind of freaked out, but I also feel a responsibility to continue my blog.” There is one key element that sets “90-Day Jane” apart from Chubbuck: the whole experiment was a hoax. It is of course disturbing that someone could distribute this type of misinformation and refer to herself as “responsible.” This being the case, the blog functions not only as a stunt, but also as a bizarre social experiment in new media, to see just how people would react to personal journalistic endeavors on the Internet.
It follows that as critics of the media, we must consider that blogging serves two equally important, but conflicting purposes: self-expression and a new form of editorial journalism. We must also consider that information disseminated on the Internet is not under the same scrutiny as print or broadcast journalism, so it is up to the audience, and not the news media to determine what is pertinent information.
In the case of blogs, that are opinionated in nature, telling the truth is less interesting than exaggeration or storytelling. “If 90-Day Jane” had focused solely on presenting an accurate portrayal of what she was doing-not actually killing herself-she would not have had audiences salivating over her every move, and thus would not have presented what is often referred to a “newsworthy information,” however falsified it may be.
This is intrinsically the point though, because with the advent of blogging comes a means to critique traditional media, and individuals need no real experience or professional clout to do so. This gives the general population the ability, in a mainstream fashion, to act as the watchdog against media conglomerates that are, often times, pandering to the corporations they answer to. Johnathan Dube, Managing Producer and Publisher of Cyberjounrnalist.net notes the comments of long time blogger Rebecca Blood when she says, “I think it’s unrealistic for the blogger to uphold journalistic standards. Most of us aren’t interested in being a journalist.” On the competing end of this view, advocates for a code of ethics for bloggers argue that bloggers need to be aware that they are putting words into print and do have a responsibility to the readers.
Journalists are tasked with presenting news, even if it is editorial in nature, and the public trusts this to be accurate. Howver, with the advent of personal blogs, “90-Day Jane” being a perfect example, there is no real way to monitor who is allowed to present what information. On that note, personal bloggers are not paid to put this information into print. They do this because it is a new way for them to express their views in an accessible manner, similar to a diary or journal entry but on a grand scale. The media wouldn’t control an individual’s personal freedom of expression in a diary that was lost and read by others, so they cannot presume to control a digital diary either.
“90-Day Jane” was certainly not presenting an ethical portrayal of what someone in a journalistic capacity should or would do. However, she isn’t claiming to be a journalist but rather acting as a social commentator on sensationalism in the media and the current reliance and isolation of the Internet. The core issue is that when you publish something, that carries responsibility. There is an ethical responsibility whether you're with an organization, or whether you're standing on that soapbox in a blogging town square. Individual bloggers, not employed by a media outlet, have no responsibility to monitor what they say in a blog. People have a choice as to what they view on the Internet. Whether it is a blog or the online edition of a major news publication, it is still a choice. Blogging seems to function as a new watchdog for the media itself, and will continue to do so as long as there are few restrictions on what content exists on the Internet.
I know this isn’t exactly what we discussed in our group, but it is something that was of particular interest to me because it shows how there can certainly be a dark side to a medium that has yet to be regulated. For that matter, it may never be regulated.
--Roger
http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2004/11/15/ethical-blogging-not-good-for-blogs/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/02/13/2008-02
No comments:
Post a Comment