Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the society.

Photo

eG Ethics code


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
99 replies to this topic

#61 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 07 May 2009 - 08:05 AM

Nobody is forcing anybody to adopt the eG Ethics code and nobody is saying you're a bad person if you adopt some other code, write your own, or just behave ethically without saying anything about it. Go for it!

Outside of a moderated forum like this, there is no peer pressure or media attention on the average blog/amateur writer


This, I think, is pretty clearly not true.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#62 Chris Amirault

Chris Amirault
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 19,628 posts
  • Location:Rhode Island

Posted 07 May 2009 - 08:19 AM

I can imagine the following happening. Let's say that a cocktail blogger that has made a stated commitment to this code consistently pushes Joe Agave premium tequila as the best. This code would require that the blogger state his or her relationship to Joe Agave up front (I have none; I went to Aspen on their dime; I design recipes for them; I'm in ads for them), which would be a very big change from current practice on many websites. In addition, the code would require that s/he address any questions raised in their feedback section and make corrections to the record if things change.

If the person says nothing at all about Joe Agave, or if the person refuses to answer questions about Joe Agave, s/he is clearly violating the code. And, believe me, news about these sorts of things travels quickly, if quietly, around the cocktail world, and reputations would be stained.

Sure, some people wouldn't care, and some people wouldn't notice. But, at least in this instance, I'm sure that a lot of people would both notice and care. The code could become a guide to creating and maintaining the integrity that's important to many (though not all, for sure) in the profession.

ET fix grammar -- CA

Edited by chrisamirault, 07 May 2009 - 08:22 AM.

Chris Amirault
camirault@eGstaff.org
eG Ethics Signatory
Sir Luscious got gator belts and patty melts

#63 oakapple

oakapple
  • participating member
  • 3,474 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 07 May 2009 - 08:33 AM

Oakapple - I don't misunderstand the intent that our "Fat Guy" has - I think it's an honorable proposal for what goes on within eGullet itself, I distrust that it could ever possibly be implemented fairly and honestly on the basis he proposes outside of these "walls". First, your first statement - while it's true, that someone who follows a code of ethics, be it this one, or the one posed over on new Food Ethics Blog site (which came out a week ago now), or someone else's, has those ethics (again, assuming they're not just paying lip service, but actually doing so), it's 1) that set of ethics, not the only set possible (the proposed one here, for example, is different in several ways from the one proposed on the site I mentioned), and 2) how does that make them more ethical than someone who has a higher ethical standard but never happened to hear of eGullet, or one of the others, or chooses to simply not sign their name to a statement?

Obviously there is no set of ethical guidelines that everyone will accept, just as there is no religion or political party that everyone accepts. But I think that it's laudable to see both eGullet and the Food Ethics Blog site drawing attention to a matter that has, until now, skated along without much formal guidance.

If either one of these guidelines is succesful—that's a big IF—I doubt that there will be many major food bloggers who haven't heard of them. Bloggers will decide for themselves whether these guidelines are worth following—just as people decide whether to be Democrats, Republicans, or neither. Readers will then decide for themselves whether a blog's decision either to adopt or reject one of these codes actually makes any difference.

Outside of a moderated forum like this, there is no peer pressure or media attention on the average blog/amateur writer

View Post

Oh, sure there is. If you haven't noticed that blogs are getting a lot of media attention, then I have to wonder what you've been reading. At some point, I could imagine that unethical blogs would be called out for censure, just as the Times would be if it turned out that Frank Bruni were accepting free food in exchange for good reviews. Obviously these ethics codes are a damp squib at the moment, since they're brand new. But the idea that they could become influential at some point seems quite reasonable to me. (That doesn't mean it will happen, of course.)

For what it's worth, the eGullet guidelines seem a lot more reasonable to me than those the Food Ethics Blog is proposing, and if I formally adopt anything, it will likely be the former.

#64 Holly Moore

Holly Moore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,573 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 07 May 2009 - 08:51 AM

I can imagine the following happening. Let's say that a cocktail blogger that has made a stated commitment to this code consistently pushes Joe Agave premium tequila as the best. This code would require that the blogger state his or her relationship to Joe Agave up front (I have none; I went to Aspen on their dime; I design recipes for them; I'm in ads for them), which would be a very big change from current practice on many websites. In addition, the code would require that s/he address any questions raised in their feedback section and make corrections to the record if things change.

If the person says nothing at all about Joe Agave, or if the person refuses to answer questions about Joe Agave, s/he is clearly violating the code. And, believe me, news about these sorts of things travels quickly, if quietly, around the cocktail world, and reputations would be stained.

Sure, some people wouldn't care, and some people wouldn't notice. But, at least in this instance, I'm sure that a lot of people would both notice and care. The code could become a guide to creating and maintaining the integrity that's important to many (though not all, for sure) in the profession.

ET fix grammar -- CA

View Post

Is the blogger expected to state "I have no relationship" as part of any favorable write-up? Whose questions does the code require the blogger to answer? Are you suggesting that these acts are required in the code or more a matter of good PR?
Holly Moore
"I eat, therefore I am."

HollyEats.Com
Twitter

#65 Chris Amirault

Chris Amirault
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 19,628 posts
  • Location:Rhode Island

Posted 07 May 2009 - 08:56 AM

Good point -- I read the code too quickly and assumed that. From a more careful rereading, I'd strike "I have none" and edit the post to read, "If the person has a relationship but says nothing at all about Joe Agave, or if the person refuses to answer questions about Joe Agave, s/he is clearly violating the code."

Prompt correction in a subsequent post. That was easy.
Chris Amirault
camirault@eGstaff.org
eG Ethics Signatory
Sir Luscious got gator belts and patty melts

#66 Holly Moore

Holly Moore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,573 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 07 May 2009 - 09:02 AM

Nothing is easy with me :wink:

I don't get from the code that a blogger is required to answer any questions concerning specific claims or events.
Holly Moore
"I eat, therefore I am."

HollyEats.Com
Twitter

#67 Chris Amirault

Chris Amirault
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 19,628 posts
  • Location:Rhode Island

Posted 07 May 2009 - 09:07 AM

Good point. I guess I could post something asking you about Joe Agave, and you could refuse to answer. If you did, I'd write, "Your refusal to answer suggests a conflict of interest that you haven't disclosed." Then I could post that photo I have of you waving from the back of your yacht, "Gracias, Joe Agave."
Chris Amirault
camirault@eGstaff.org
eG Ethics Signatory
Sir Luscious got gator belts and patty melts

#68 Chris Hennes

Chris Hennes

    Director of Operations

  • manager
  • 8,202 posts
  • Location:Norman, Oklahoma

Posted 07 May 2009 - 09:22 AM

Chris, I think you're thinking about it backwards: if you claim to be following this Code of Ethics, and you post about Joe Agave without disclosing a relationship, you are implicitly stating that no relationship exists: there is no requirement to explicitly state it. The rest of this discussion only pertains to the enforcement of the code. Which in your example is being taken care of by the blog's readers, who will soon decide that the blogger is full of crap and will cease to be readers.

Chris Hennes
Director of Operations
chennes@egullet.org


#69 Holly Moore

Holly Moore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,573 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 07 May 2009 - 09:26 AM

Fair comment. This website allows registered users to comment on the content contained herein. Free and fair comment will be permitted so long as it is civil and conforms to this website's terms of service, including this document.

There are food and restaurant websites that are one-way - no option for reader comment except by email. In fact HollyEats gave up its struggling discussion forum as part of the founding of eGullet as eGullet initially was intended to serve as the discussion forum for several food and restaurant websites.

Does eGullet consider the requirement for reader comments essential to operating an ethical website?

Edited by Holly Moore, 07 May 2009 - 09:27 AM.

Holly Moore
"I eat, therefore I am."

HollyEats.Com
Twitter

#70 oakapple

oakapple
  • participating member
  • 3,474 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 07 May 2009 - 09:58 AM

Does eGullet consider the requirement for reader comments essential to operating an ethical website?

View Post

This is definitely a tough one, because if you allow people to comment, you also need to invest the time to weed out spam and other inappropriate posts.

#71 saltshaker

saltshaker
  • participating member
  • 131 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 07 May 2009 - 12:57 PM

Nobody is forcing anybody to adopt the eG Ethics code and nobody is saying you're a bad person if you adopt some other code, write your own, or just behave ethically without saying anything about it. Go for it!

Outside of a moderated forum like this, there is no peer pressure or media attention on the average blog/amateur writer


This, I think, is pretty clearly not true.

View Post


Steven, I fully understand that your intent, and that of most of those who support the idea, is completely honorable. And I do think that any good blogger ought to state to their readers, openly, what can be expected of them - though I wouldn't require them to do so. But there's reality to live with. If you, or someone else, especially with what will appear to the casual reader to be an "Organization", creates a "badge" or some other sort of way to denominate your blog or site as one that subscribes to the ethical standards of eGullet, it will, by virtue of the way that things happen, become a negative for anyone who doesn't have it. It's unavoidable. It's the nature of "badges" or "tokens" or anything of the sort - those who aren't privy to what went into the creation of it will make the assumption that it actually means something. The new reader of food blogs will see on some sites "I subscribe to the eGullet food bloggers ethical code" and have no idea that eGullet is simply a forum where a bunch of us get together and have a good time chatting about food. They'll not see it on 2 out of 3 or 4 or 5 sites and the natural, human reaction will be "oh, this guy doesn't subscribe to The Ethical Code". You have good intentions, but we've all heard about what road those lead down.

As someone who is a professional journalist, what I like about the blog format is that it is the opportunity to not have to hold myself to those same standards as in my paying work. It doesn't mean I won't be honest and upfront with my readers, but I like reserving the right to be snarky, catty, or downright rude if I feel like it (maybe it's that Amer. vs. Brit or other countries journalistic standards thing), and not have to apologize for it. It doesn't make the information I provide less valuable as long as I'm clear that that's what I'm doing, but my blog, far and away beyond any of my professional writing, is intended to be a completely subjective spot, with no pretense at objectivity - and I'd venture to bet that most food bloggers created their blogs for the same reason.

And I'd stand by my statement that there is no real peer pressure on the average blogger out there. Here on eGullet or similar forums, of course, there's the simple fact of moderation and commentary. But just exactly what effect do other food bloggers have on what I, or anyone else, writes on my blog? Or are we out to create a bunch of blogs that criticize other people's blogs for their standards? Will eGullet or someone else start publishing a list of "unacceptable blogs"? I would hope not. As to media attention - yes, there's a general attention to the blogging world, but in terms of any one blog in specific, no, I simply don't agree that there's any pressure to conform to standards - except self-inflicted by those who feel like they're not being taken as seriously as they want to be, because they think that their blog ought to be recognized for the sheer brilliance that they're quite sure it contains.
SaltShaker - Casting a little flavor (and a few aspersions) on the world of food, drink, and life

Casa SaltShaker - Restaurant de Puertas Cerradas

Spanish-English-Spanish Food & Wine Dictionary - a must for any traveler!

#72 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 07 May 2009 - 07:42 PM

Does eGullet consider the requirement for reader comments essential to operating an ethical website?

View Post


There are lots of ways to operate an ethical website. A website that doesn't allow for user comments, however, might have trouble satisfying the fair-comment provision of the eG Ethics code.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#73 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 07 May 2009 - 07:48 PM

If you, or someone else, especially with what will appear to the casual reader to be an "Organization", creates a "badge" or some other sort of way to denominate your blog or site as one that subscribes to the ethical standards of eGullet, it will, by virtue of the way that things happen, become a negative for anyone who doesn't have it.

View Post


If this comes to pass, I'll be very impressed with us.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#74 prasantrin

prasantrin
  • legacy participant
  • 5,468 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 08:16 PM

If you, or someone else, especially with what will appear to the casual reader to be an "Organization", creates a "badge" or some other sort of way to denominate your blog or site as one that subscribes to the ethical standards of eGullet, it will, by virtue of the way that things happen, become a negative for anyone who doesn't have it.

View Post


If this comes to pass, I'll be very impressed with us.

View Post


But the comment wasn't intended to be flattering, as I read it. It's saying by creating this "badge", you are also creating a two-tiered system whereby some blogs are judged "bad" just because they don't have the badge (not necessarily because they are bad).

This could, however, work the other way where eG developed a bad reputation (for whatever reason), and any blog displaying the eG badge were seen in a negative light.

#75 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 08 May 2009 - 05:39 AM

But the comment wasn't intended to be flattering


Oh, I know!

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#76 Holly Moore

Holly Moore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,573 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 08 May 2009 - 06:02 AM

Does eGullet consider the requirement for reader comments essential to operating an ethical website?

View Post


There are lots of ways to operate an ethical website. A website that doesn't allow for user comments, however, might have trouble satisfying the fair-comment provision of the eG Ethics code.

View Post

Declaring comps or not accepting comps and citing/crediting sources are obvious ethical concerns. I do not see how fair comment is an ethical matter.
Holly Moore
"I eat, therefore I am."

HollyEats.Com
Twitter

#77 RobertCollins

RobertCollins
  • participating member
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 08 May 2009 - 09:57 PM

I have noticed that most industries adopt some sort of 'Ethics" code after they have found the finger in the cookie jar, [Puns aren't intended but that won't stop me from realizing a few must occur]

I don't read many of the Restaurant writings here or even on the few blogs that talk about Seattle restaurants so, I guess much of this has gone by me. I like the idea of ethics but find the need on the internet more a joke than useful.

Codes are of no use unless they are enforceable. How will you enforce this code and not run off those who simply don't follow that Moderator's party line?

I need not bore you by going further, the bold above says most of what I believe.

Also I like the Idea of a bit of some"anti-flame" Mod Help. Opining can get TOO lusty at times.

Robert

Seattle


#78 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 09 May 2009 - 12:29 AM

Codes are of no use unless they are enforceable.

View Post


This point has already been addressed, but I'd simply add that on its face the comment makes little sense. We could cite hundreds of codes that are not enforceable, such as the ethics of any religion if you live in a secular state, but we don't call those codes "useless." In addition, as has already been explained, a certain amount of "enforcement" may come from peer pressure, media attention and a website's user-commenting process.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#79 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 09 May 2009 - 12:37 AM

I do not see how fair comment is an ethical matter.

View Post


That's kind of why we used the word "fair"!

The interactivity that the internet allows is probably the best means of keeping websites honest. Websites that seek to provide one-way information, on the old media model, should probably look to codes of ethics designed for old media. Websites that allow for interactivity may find the eG Ethics code, which incorporates interactive discussion, to be useful. The code doesn't call for totally unfettered commenting opportunities, just fair ones. There can be moderation, there can be terms of service, there can be rules requiring civil comment etc. But in the end fair comment must be allowed under the code. For example, if a restaurant is criticized, the owner must be allowed to respond.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#80 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 09 May 2009 - 12:49 AM

As someone who is a professional journalist, what I like about the blog format is that it is the opportunity to not have to hold myself to those same standards as in my paying work.

View Post


I can see why you might not want to hold yourself to the same standards of rigor in editing. The blog format, and online writing in general, allows for more spontaneity than that and usually there aren't even editors involved.

But none of that removes the need for ethics. A lot of people who write online never stop to think that, once they click the publish button, their words are available worldwide for anyone to read. They are instant global publishers. Wonderful advances in technology have made that a reality. But as with many technological advances, our thinking about ethics needs to catch up. If you're an instant global publisher you should act responsibly. That's what we're trying to help with.

Those who write online should also realize that, as much as they want it to be a casual thing, the second they publish their words globally, they can be called to account for copyright-law violations, defamation, invasion of privacy and various other acts. A little planning ahead, a little thinking about responsible conduct, can help prevent some really unpleasant surprises.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#81 saltshaker

saltshaker
  • participating member
  • 131 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 10 May 2009 - 02:17 PM

Those who write online should also realize that, as much as they want it to be a casual thing, the second they publish their words globally, they can be called to account for copyright-law violations, defamation, invasion of privacy and various other acts. A little planning ahead, a little thinking about responsible conduct, can help prevent some really unpleasant surprises.

View Post


In regard to your last paragraph, absolutely. People "ought" to think about what they write before they hit the publish button. It's much the same as all the media attention that social networking sites have gotten about how many people publish intimate or bizarre details about themselves or their workplaces or schools on places like MySpace of Facebook without thinking about the consequences. And again, I don't have a problem with people being ethical and thinking about what they're about to write, or anything related. My concern is not at all that - people can choose to be as ethical or as responsible as they like, and sure, I'd love it if many of the folk out there were more so than they are....

My concern is that eGullet, or the young ladies who've published the other code proposal (curious publicity timing just before they release a book, no?) are inadvertently setting themselves up to be a de facto reference standard that will appear to the public to be some sort of official or professional standard that an individual blog is either "living up to" or not. It's irrelevant that neither intends to be that, it's simply whether or not their mere existence creates that impression. Badge or not, there will always be those who hold themselves to a more professional standard and those to a lesser, but the badge shouldn't take on the appearance of a seal of approval... which, if it catches on at all, it likely, and unfortunately, will. I also think that bloggers who take on the badge or whatever code they officially state, are setting themselves up for many of the things you mention - one of the things that professional journalists, restaurateurs and chefs, and others have been lamenting for the last few years is that by virtue of the fact that bloggers are amateurs and not beholden to an ethical code, they are basically untouchable for their subjective comments. Publicly state that you agree to be held to professional standards and just wait for the first restaurateur or chef who gets slammed to decide to sue for defamation or loss of revenue (whether accurate or not) - it's happened to professional food critics, who often have the pockets of a paper behind them to cover legal expenses, and generally win, but how many bloggers could handle that?
SaltShaker - Casting a little flavor (and a few aspersions) on the world of food, drink, and life

Casa SaltShaker - Restaurant de Puertas Cerradas

Spanish-English-Spanish Food & Wine Dictionary - a must for any traveler!

#82 Sneakeater

Sneakeater
  • participating member
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 10 May 2009 - 04:38 PM

I'm not sure I get that last point, Saltshaker. You can be sued for defamation without publicly stating you agree to bound by a set of professional standards. I don't see what the standards have to do with the claim.

#83 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 10 May 2009 - 04:52 PM

I don't get any of saltshaker's points, but that last one is especially ill-conceived. Defamation does indeed exist in the law regardless of what standards a writer proclaims. You're no less liable for not having a code of ethics. Our hope, however, is that writers who follow the eG Ethics code will expose themselves to less risk of all kinds of legal action than writers who follow no code. That much seems like a no-brainer.

The fear that somehow the eG Ethics badge will be so powerful that its absence will become a stigma is, while interesting, hard to take seriously. I can only hope it becomes that powerful and that we have to start worrying about how to explain that it's not a stigma not to display the badge. I think our main challenge will be building awareness and getting people to adopt it in the first place, though.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#84 kitchenhacker

kitchenhacker
  • participating member
  • 42 posts

Posted 11 May 2009 - 12:19 PM

I have some issues with codes of ethics in general. A code isn't going to be responsive to individual situations. It will leave out a number of cases. I addressed my concerns with the Food Blog Code of Ethicson my blog. I have some of the same concerns about this one. Some are different, though:

Respect for intellectual property. All text, photos and other media from outside sources is republished only with the explicit permission of its owner or in compliance with an applicable license (e.g., Creative Commons), with the exception of brief quotations from written works in the context of discussing those works.


Is there a reason that this is much more stringent than fair use?

Links where credit is due. Where the creator of content referenced on this website has made it possible to link to that content, a link is given here. Where books are referenced, links are provided to allow purchase. In general, links are favored over reproduction of content.


I do not see the point of this. If, for example, I am writing something critical of a book that I do not believe deserves to be purchased, why should I link to a place to purchase it?

Also, for individual users, how does this fit with policies like those here at the eGullet forums where reproduction of content is preferred rather than linking back to ones own blog?


Disclosure of comps. Where a free or discounted product or service has been accepted, a corresponding disclosure is made.


Presumably only if you are writing about that product or service, yes? If someone sends me something unsolicited and I do not write about it, I should not be required to disclose that they sent me something.

Fair comment. This website allows registered users to comment on the content contained herein. Free and fair comment will be permitted so long as it is civil and conforms to this website's terms of service, including this document.


Not all websites should be required to allow comments.To say otherwise presumes a great deal about the purpose of that site. Moreover, "free" comment is ambiguous. What about comment moderation? By my account, eGullet does not allow free comment, there is a process that needs to be gone through before the ability to comment is granted.

Fact checking. The author of any factual statement on this website has made a good-faith effort to confirm the accuracy of that statement. Statements of opinion, however, are just that.


What about websites that are intentionally tongue-in-cheek? What about those that take an outrageous tone? As long as they are up-front about these things, is that a problem?


Faithfulness to the historical record. This site has an edit window of X minutes to permit correction of typographical, spelling, attribution and minor errors. Neither this window nor administrative powers will be used to remove or alter content in a way that distorts the historical development of any content, except when the terms of service have been violated. Even then, due care will be taken to restore the content so as to preserve the record.


Say I have a popular blog post on a topic. I find out that a fact in that blog post is incorrect. Shouldn't I update it?


Revision.  This code will be revised, updated and clarified from time to time. The latest version of the code along with elaboration and discussion can be found at LINK.


This is problematic unless you maintain earlier versions as well and allow people to sign on to a specific version. Someone might sign on to 1.0 - but not be willing to follow the changes that you make between 1.0 and 2.0. Retaining them as a signatory to the updated code would be unethical.

#85 saltshaker

saltshaker
  • participating member
  • 131 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 11 May 2009 - 01:42 PM

The point, and clearly you both don't agree, but so be it, is that by claiming that you agree to be bound by a set code of ethics that's laid out there for everyone to see, it is more likely that someone will go after you for violation of that code than if you've not stated it. No, it doesn't change what they could do under the law in terms of filing a suit (at least within U.S. law), but that badge is akin to painting a target on yourself - not always the best move, you know? From your perspective, the code makes it less likely that people will be sued, or whatever form of castigation we may wish to conceive of, from my perspective it makes it more likely. Perhaps it's because we live in different cultures and things are done differently (and, U.S. laws are not the only ones out there - you didn't propose this as a code of ethics only for bloggers in the U.S.).

Look, none of this may come to pass. Steven, you may be correct and that the badge or code of ethics here will more or less come to nought outside of the eGullet world - and obviously, I hope that's the case, no offense intended. But I think it's disingenous of you to pretend that you're not really hoping for it to come to more than that and that you don't expect something to come of it - otherwise, why bother to present it at all? Though we don't know each other, you've never struck me as someone who just blurts out ideas haphazardly with no intent other than to show that he can - in which case, logically, you're hoping that what I've suggested indeed does come to pass. If all you were hoping for was that people would think about what they post, you could have done it as a discussion thread of those ideas rather than a code with a proposed badge.

Edited by saltshaker, 11 May 2009 - 01:45 PM.

SaltShaker - Casting a little flavor (and a few aspersions) on the world of food, drink, and life

Casa SaltShaker - Restaurant de Puertas Cerradas

Spanish-English-Spanish Food & Wine Dictionary - a must for any traveler!

#86 oakapple

oakapple
  • participating member
  • 3,474 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 11 May 2009 - 02:34 PM

My concern is that eGullet, or the young ladies who've published the other code proposal (curious publicity timing just before they release a book, no?) are inadvertently setting themselves up to be a de facto reference standard that will appear to the public to be some sort of official or professional standard that an individual blog is either "living up to" or not. It's irrelevant that neither intends to be that, it's simply whether or not their mere existence creates that impression.

That will be true only to the extent that the "market place" demands it. Even Fat Guy, who is clearly in favor of these guidelines, seems to doubt that they will be that influential. So do I.

Of course, it is worth noting that eGullet and the other site have not made identical proposals. They do intersect in a number of ways, but they also have significant differences. The other site, for instance, argues that a blogger should visit a restaurant at least twice before posting about it. I strenuously disagree with that.

Publicly state that you agree to be held to professional standards and just wait for the first restaurateur or chef who gets slammed to decide to sue for defamation or loss of revenue (whether accurate or not) - it's happened to professional food critics, who often have the pockets of a paper behind them to cover legal expenses, and generally win, but how many bloggers could handle that?

View Post

I'm sorry, but this truly is nonsense. A blogger could be sued for defamation only if they have committed an act that the law defines as defamatory. The claim of conforming to the eG Ethics code, even if untrue, is not such an act.

#87 robyn

robyn
  • legacy participant
  • 3,577 posts

Posted 11 May 2009 - 02:57 PM

Gosh - I had more fun seeing Wicked and The Players Championship this past week than reading all the internet buzz about this and other proposed codes of ethics this afternoon. Am I the only person left here who doesn't have a blog - or fancy himself a semi-professional restaurant reviewer or photographer? I also pay for my food - except when the restaurant comps me something because it screwed something up - or because - for a variety of reasons - the chef wants us to try a little something we haven't ordered. I hang around here to get impressions of restaurants I'm considering trying (especially when I travel) - and - in return - I try to return the favor for other people who have the same type of question.

I no longer write negative things about restaurants in public - except some restaurants that are so famous they can withstand a little criticism (if justified) without trying to get back at you. Because - with lesser places (particularly those with ambitious chefs) - people have tried to get back at me for saying negative (but accurate) things. And none of these codes of conduct would prevent the type of intimidation I have on occasion experienced. For example - how about the owner of a restaurant calling you and threatening you or someone you dined with after reading something negative here. It's happened to me. I wish I could dine anonymously - but I can't . And - when you make a reservation - the restaurant usually has both your name and your phone number - and sometimes your address (especially if you're staying in a hotel and a concierge has made your hotel reservation). In one case - I was put on the restaurant's "sh** list" - and was called and told I was no longer welcome at the restaurant (after 2 meals there - one pretty good - the other not so good). So how does that jive with writing up multiple experiences at a particular place?

For those of you who fancy yourself professionals or semi-professionals - there is already a code of conduct - and it is - as mentioned above - here on the website of the Association of Food Journalists. So follow it if you care to - but leave the rest of us alone.

BTW - I really don't care if someone (whether or not he is a professional) is being comp'd or not comp'd for his meal (by the restaurant - his employer - or anyone else). Most people on most chat boards I've been on (and people in the print media for that matter) have been around for a while. After one or two experiences - I can figure out whether I agree in general with their assessments of restaurants (and I don't care whether I disagree with people because their meals are comp'd - our tastes are different - they are "friends of a restaurant" and I'm not - or they just have lousy taste - end result is the same - I just don't listen to what they say).

Finally - with regard to photographs - I wish more people would use stock photos - with or without attribution (and it's easy to figure out when people are using stock photos by using sources like Google images). Because that would mean fewer people would bring cameras to restaurants. I am all in favor of restaurants banning cameras the way many have banned cellphones. A great restaurant should be like theater. Whether it's theater on the stage - or on the golf course. And you know something - you can't bring/use a cellphone or a camera in either - and - if the performances are good - it is possible to have a really good time (which I did last week in both venues). Robyn

#88 robyn

robyn
  • legacy participant
  • 3,577 posts

Posted 11 May 2009 - 03:38 PM

I have separated this portion of my thoughts from my last message because I don't know if it will make it to the board. For those of you who aren't familiar with the history of major food chatboards (some of which have become pretty minor league these days) - the most important thing to know is the people who ran and/or worked on the old boards - and their offspring - did not - for a variety of reasons - get along. Still don't. So boards started big - and split - and had offsplits. Kind of like the Bible - X begat A and B - who begat J and K and L - etc. :smile: So there is a lot of backbiting nonsense that gets written these days.

One important thing to remember is that there are a fair number of major players who have major league egos. Still - in the end - their fights - and their backbiting - have nothing to do with how good the recommendations are on their websites. Even from the founders themselves. For example - Steve P. from OAD has a lot of nasty things to say about Fat Guy this week. But Fat Guy was one of the few people in the NYC food community to recognize ADNY as a great restaurant at the beginning - which resulted in my having a great meal there. And when I had a less than stellar meal at Per Se - Steve P. said it because I didn't have "friends" at the restaurant.

IMO - both Fat Guy and Steve P. are similar in one respect (which they may not realize). They both make excuses for mediocre meals in supposedly great restaurants - the former on the basis that any restaurant can have a bad night - and the latter that one needs "friends" at a great restaurant to have a great meal.

I disagree with both. And - more importantly - how will any Code of Ethics solve the problem of bum restaurant recommendations? No matter why or from whom we get them? This is really the most important issue. How to find good restaurants? As much as I like Holly Eats type of websites (including Holly Eats' own) - one has very little invested in trying them - maybe $10-20 at most. And you're not going to travel more than 10 miles out of your way to try one. It's not like you're in Paris or New York or London - having spent a lot of money to go and stay there - and facing a $200+ pp restaurant bill. On my part - I think we should be concentrating on how to get the most out of chatboards in terms of spending our food dollars. And I'm not sure that ethics has anything to do with it.

FWIW - I've been thrown off both boards in the past - and possibly hold the world's record for deleted messages on each as well - so I am not exactly afraid of speaking my mind. Sometimes I think it could be a NYC type of thing (competitive food boards - I'm not sure - I've never lived in NYC). Because the best restaurant coverage when it comes to Florida (where I live) is on Chowhound. It is not necessarily the most literate - or incisive - and I hate the board software - but it is by far the most comprehensive. Robyn

#89 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 11 May 2009 - 04:34 PM

how will any Code of Ethics solve the problem of bum restaurant recommendations?

View Post


It won't. A bum recommendation isn't a question of ethics. We're not trying to solve all the world's problems, or even all the world's ethics problems. We're trying to provide some good guidance for online writers, and I think we achieve that with the code.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)


#90 Fat Guy

Fat Guy
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 29,303 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 11 May 2009 - 04:39 PM

Saltshaker, the notion that there will be a stigma attached to not adopting the eG Ethics code is risible. You attribute a hilarious amount of power to our organization. And I'm saying, if anything like that ever happens, I will announce loudly and repeatedly that it's just one possible code and that there should never be a stigma attached to not adopting it specifically. Whether there should be a stigma attached to the total absence of any code is another question. I think if we can apply some pressure to online writers to think about ethics and make their guidelines clear, that will be a good thing.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)