Comments on: Reporters: Are YOU \”On the Record?\” http://www.contentious.com/2005/04/26/reporters-are-you-on-the-record/ Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age. Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:16:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Margaret http://www.contentious.com/2005/04/26/reporters-are-you-on-the-record/#comment-18206 Margaret Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:23:28 +0000 #comment-18206 Think first is my suggestion. A while back I did an email interview for a monthly zine which strongly prefers first rights. . About a week before the zine was due outI saw a notice on a list that the interview was posted. Huh? I pulled the interview immediately. I was furious. I felt that the interviewee had violated my copyright on the questions, had been very discourteous to post before my zine published and even more not to let me know about it instead of just finding out through the list. Maybe a few hundred people have read the interview on the site. The zine had over 20,000 subscribers. Think first is my suggestion. A while back I did an email interview for a monthly zine which strongly prefers first rights. . About a week before the zine was due outI saw a notice on a list that the interview was posted. Huh? I pulled the interview immediately. I was furious. I felt that the interviewee had violated my copyright on the questions, had been very discourteous to post before my zine published and even more not to let me know about it instead of just finding out through the list. Maybe a few hundred people have read the interview on the site. The zine had over 20,000 subscribers.

]]> By: jim http://www.contentious.com/2005/04/26/reporters-are-you-on-the-record/#comment-18126 jim Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:03:14 +0000 #comment-18126 Yah, Tim Bray has covered this one in Ongoing, in <a href ="http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/03/23/Reverse-Journalism" title="Reverse Journalism">March 2005</a> and <a href="http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/04/RSS-Story" title="RSS JournoFunnies">August 2003</a>. Yah, Tim Bray has covered this one in Ongoing, in March 2005 and August 2003.

]]> By: Jim Spice http://www.contentious.com/2005/04/26/reporters-are-you-on-the-record/#comment-18125 Jim Spice Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:52:40 +0000 #comment-18125 I would suggest that, yes, the journalist's comments should be considered "on the record" unless otherwise stated. However, with this arrangement comes responsibility. If the blogger accepts "off the record" or "deep cover" conditions, would he or she be willing to protect the source's identity under threat of law? Reporters' protection has been diminished by recent court rulings. The blogger's rights would be considerably less, I would predict, if existent at all. Hats off to the first blogger who will serve a jail term to protect a source. I would suggest that, yes, the journalist’s comments should be considered “on the record” unless otherwise stated. However, with this arrangement comes responsibility. If the blogger accepts “off the record” or “deep cover” conditions, would he or she be willing to protect the source’s identity under threat of law? Reporters’ protection has been diminished by recent court rulings. The blogger’s rights would be considerably less, I would predict, if existent at all. Hats off to the first blogger who will serve a jail term to protect a source.

]]> By: Jack Krupansky http://www.contentious.com/2005/04/26/reporters-are-you-on-the-record/#comment-18120 Jack Krupansky Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:37:38 +0000 #comment-18120 I would suggest a concept of "professional discretion". By default, unless sworn to secrecy, you can do whatever you want with the conceptual content of the conversation, short of directly or implicitly identifying the participants of the conversation. So, you might write that you were interviewed by "a journalist" or "by a major media outlet", with freedom, so long as you respect the other party's right to a professional degree of privacy. If you were having a private conversation with someone on a non-professional basis, you would similarly be "obligated" to respect their privacy, while at the same time free to discuss "details" at a more abstract social level. Traditional journalists may have their own canon of ethics, but us bloggers simply need to incrementally navigate towards a balance between benefits to society and inherent rights to privacy. The better job we do of respecting the rights of others, the more willing others will be to participate in a free and open dialog. -- Jack Krupansky I would suggest a concept of “professional discretion”. By default, unless
sworn to secrecy, you can do whatever you want with the conceptual content
of the conversation, short of directly or implicitly identifying the
participants of the conversation. So, you might write that you were
interviewed by “a journalist” or “by a major media outlet”, with freedom, so
long as you respect the other party’s right to a professional degree of
privacy.

If you were having a private conversation with someone on a non-professional
basis, you would similarly be “obligated” to respect their privacy, while
at the same time free to discuss “details” at a more abstract social level.

Traditional journalists may have their own canon of ethics, but us bloggers
simply need to incrementally navigate towards a balance between benefits to
society and inherent rights to privacy.

The better job we do of respecting the rights of others, the more willing
others will be to participate in a free and open dialog.

– Jack Krupansky

]]>