Blogging, honesty, integrity

[Chufi]

But I'm not aware of any serious print publication that shows articles in advance to the people it's covering and negotiates with them about what to include and not include.

←

In the Netherlands, it´s pretty much custom to show any piece or interview to the people it´s covering. And yes, this often turns into a negotiation process about what to delete and what to include. Not all press/media systems in all countries are equal

←

But I'm not aware of any serious print publication that shows articles in advance to the people it's covering and negotiates with them about what to include and not include.

←

Isn't this common practice when U.S. glossies cover celebrities?

It's a widespread and unfortunate practice, yes (it's called a "press-coverage contract"). And it's a good example of the distinction between serious and non-serious journalism.

←

Like I said, showing articles in advance to the people it's covering, is common practice in the Netherlands, for serious magazines/newspapers etc.

And to clarify my point just once more: I never EVER contemplated lying on my blog. The fact that I had to write a (somewhat) negative review, and the way I discovered I felt about that, made me start this thread, in search of other bloggers' experiences with similar situations.

Some of the replies have helped me sort out my feelings about this and, most importantly, helped to put the situation in perspective for me (something I really need help with from time to time )

[Fat Guy]

There are three things being discussed in relation to this tangent that has nothing to do with the scenario outlined in the topic:

- Negotiating the scope of an interview in advance. This is ethically objectionable, but it's common practice in soft media like celebrity-profiling glossies. An agreement as to scope does not mean the article is shown to the subject prior to publication.

- Fact checking. This is standard practice. Factual data -- age, spelling, direct quotes -- are confirmed, usually in a phone call with a fact checker. The article is not shown to the subject prior to publication.

- Allowing the subject of an article or interview to read it and negotiate changes. Again, I'm not aware of any serious journalistic publication that would tolerate this. And while I've heard several times now that it's common in the Netherlands, I'm not fully convinced given that there seems to be persistent confusion among these three different scenarios. But if it is common practice in the Netherlands or anywhere else, it's all the more reason that readers should not take the offending publications seriously.

[Chufi]

- Allowing the subject of an article or interview to read it and negotiate changes. Again, I'm not aware of any serious journalistic publication that would tolerate this. And while I've heard several times now that it's common in the Netherlands, I'm not fully convinced given that there seems to be persistent confusion among these three different scenarios. But if it is common practice in the Netherlands or anywhere else, it's all the more reason that readers should not take the offending publications seriously.

←

I live here, and I have several friends working as journalists/editors for what we, here, in The Netherlands, consider serious journalistic publications. It's up to you if you find my comments about this convincing or not.

This thread is going some where I really did not want it to go. Discussing whether or not Dutch journalism can be considered serious, was not what I had in mind. This whole digression came about because I stated that if I were writing an article for a magazine about the chef I started the topic about, I would show him my article and some of the content could be negotiated, as is common practice in the country where I live.

In my mind, and this has been my experience with the blogging community, blogs do not follow quite the same rules as (paid) journalistic assignments for newspapers/articles. Even when one says that a writer should follow the same ethical guidelines for everything she writes, there is still the big difference that a blog is personal and completely my own responsibility (for instance, I now have the choice not to write about this guy and no one will know or care, whereas if this was an assignment for a magazine, I'd have to write the piece - if I wanted to make some money at least).

Blogging is what I was talking about in my OP (it's even in the thread title - in a forum about food on the internet). I'm sorry that there have not been more replies from bloggers, which is what I was looking for. But then, I know that in whatever world, online or real, one hardly gets what one is looking for, and the things you do get might in the end be of more value or interest.

[Tess]

I think different bloggers have different goals for their blogs

This to me is the most relevant thing in the thread so far. Steven's comments make sense, I think, but only if some form of "journalism" is a goal you have for your blog.

I agree with this. If you are writing about your discoveries in the culinary arena for people to share and enjoy, you are not aiming for any kind of completeness. You don't like something-- just leave it out. (As Holly says, what would be dishonest would be misrepresenting the experience you had.) I think you should just consider the audience you have in mind, and ask whether or not what you're writing is going to be useful to them.

As someone who constantly refers to blogs (and websites like this) for ideas, the one thing that really annoys me is when I realize that someone has soft-pedaled a negative experience, and I've tried whatever it was based on their word and wasted my time and money.

Your blog looks really nice. by the way.

[SobaAddict70]

- Allowing the subject of an article or interview to read it and negotiate changes. Again, I'm not aware of any serious journalistic publication that would tolerate this. And while I've heard several times now that it's common in the Netherlands, I'm not fully convinced given that there seems to be persistent confusion among these three different scenarios. But if it is common practice in the Netherlands or anywhere else, it's all the more reason that readers should not take the offending publications seriously.

←

I live here, and I have several friends working as journalists/editors for what we, here, in The Netherlands, consider serious journalistic publications. It's up to you if you find my comments about this convincing or not.

This thread is going some where I really did not want it to go. Discussing whether or not Dutch journalism can be considered serious, was not what I had in mind. This whole digression came about because I stated that if I were writing an article for a magazine about the chef I started the topic about, I would show him my article and some of the content could be negotiated, as is common practice in the country where I live.

In my mind, and this has been my experience with the blogging community, blogs do not follow quite the same rules as (paid) journalistic assignments for newspapers/articles. Even when one says that a writer should follow the same ethical guidelines for everything she writes, there is still the big difference that a blog is personal and completely my own responsibility (for instance, I now have the choice not to write about this guy and no one will know or care, whereas if this was an assignment for a magazine, I'd have to write the piece - if I wanted to make some money at least).

Blogging is what I was talking about in my OP (it's even in the thread title - in a forum about food on the internet). I'm sorry that there have not been more replies from bloggers, which is what I was looking for. But then, I know that in whatever world, online or real, one hardly gets what one is looking for, and the things you do get might in the end be of more value or interest.

←

I've refrained from entering this conversation because I don't consider myself a professional critic by any stretch of the imagination, although I do eat out fairly frequently and am somewhat opinionated.

A number of things will depend on the way you present your piece as well as followup. If you include a few positive comments to help mitigate the criticism, I doubt your friend will take it the wrong way [unless your experience was off-the-charts negative]. This is the approach I've taken in the past when it comes to restaurant criticism, not only on my own blog but also on this and other food fora.

Edited May 28, 2008 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Diner Girl]

Chufi, as someone who has done her fair share of global news media work, and as someone who writes a food blog, I hope I can offer some insight that might be helpful.

My blog is singularly focused on cooking my way through The French Laundry Cookbook, so when I started out I didn't think I'd have to worry about the pitfalls involved in doing reviews. Boy, was I wrong. On the whole, when I started the blog I set a few editorial standards for myself not only to maintain my sanity, but also keep myself in check should I ever be confronted with a tough decision or feel myself wavering on how to say something that someone else might not like. Before I ever put fingers to keyboard, my guidelines were and still are:

1) Tell the truth, but don't go out of your way to be an asshole just because you had a bad day and need to vent.

2) Always wait 24 hours before hitting the "publish" button. Go back and re-read the post and make sure you're being honest in your writing and your intent.

3) Know that you're not going to please everyone, and it's okay as long as you've been honest and can stand up for yourself and what you've written.

Much like I rely on journalists to report the facts of a story, I also rely on op-ed writers to have credibility and fortitude when it comes to tell me why they believe what they believe. In many ways, blogging straddles that line and it's a delicate balance. At the core, I believe it's about trust, honor and integrity, no matter what you write and no matter whom you write it for.

When it comes to food (and many other things), I rely on the opinions of those I've come to trust -- whether it's someone I've known forever, or something I've just learned about online. With trust comes responsibility (whether you like it or not), and I realized a few months into my blog that many of my readers were already beginning to trust me and the information I was providing about resources and purveyors, so I took it, and still do take it very seriously.

I've had great experiences with food purveyors, and I've written about those. And, I've had shitty experiences with food purveyors, and I've written about those. All with honesty and integrity, and the knowledge that if I were challenged on any of it, I could hold my head up high at the end of the day and be fine with what I published.

I can tell you're conflicted by this, so perhaps you may want to trust your gut and just shelve the story for a few days until you have some time to think about it. You should probably also write your own personal set of rules for the blog. I think when you're expected to review things, it's easy to become swayed by people offering freebies and insider info. It is flattering, but if this is something you take seriously (which it sounds like you do), then you should probably set some rules for yourself that you can freely share with those who send you things or offer their goods and services in exchange for the possibility of a review. A good friend of mine writes for Vanity Fair and the amount of free vacations and high-end luxury goods that come her way is astounding. She has a template letter and email that goes out to everyone who sends her something that thanks them for their generosity, but also ensures that in no way will it ensure a review, favorable or not.

You say that you're writing a series about a specific subject -- let's just say it's olive oil, for the sake of playing out this example. If I were to come to your blog and read only glowing reviews of every olive oil you'd ever tried, I would assume one of two things: a) you only posted reviews of the ones you liked and the ones you hated never saw the light of day; or, b) you're full of shit because not every olive oil is spectacular. There are duds and that's okay, because it's based on your informed opinion and your expertise in learning about and tasting different kinds of olive oil. So, in this series about olive oil (or whatever it is you're covering), you should be clear about what makes it into the series and what doesn't.

If you didn't like this particular product, it's okay to say so. It doesn't mean that you are condemning this man's entire establishment. In fact, perhaps you can even share some of the angst involved in not liking this product -- that the other things they make/sell have been great, which is why you go there, and that the owner was really helpful in providing you with background information on the product and you are grateful for his help, but that this particular item just didn't do it for you, which was a disappointment. Everyone has experiences like this, and talking about it openly may engage your readers in an interesting discussion about unmet expectations in the comments section of your blog.

You're not going to make everyone happy all the time. And, even though you may like this person, the world is not going to stop turning if you offer an honest critique of this one particular item. He may be angry, but that's his issue to deal with, not yours. You have to feel as if you are being honest without purposely intending harm for malicious reasons, and you have to know that your readers trust your opinion, and if you lead them astray, they'll figure it out and they'll go elsewhere.

Steven's point about having to cut a section of his book because it didn't help tell the story is an important one. Your words need to be engaging and ultimately need to tell the story of what is is you're writing about. If this "olive oil" experience helps tell the overall story, then you need to find a way to write it that carries out that intent. If not, then it should be easy to just move on.

I've blathered on long enough.... write yourself a set of editorial guidelines and stick to them. And know that it's okay not to like something. The sun will still come up tomorrow, and there will be plenty of other things for you to review and critique.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Diner Girl (log)

[prasantrin]

Slightly off-topic, but along the lines of honesty and integrity in blogging...

I was reading one of my favourite blogs today, and found a post that mentioned the plagiarism of the blog-writer's pictures. Another blogger (who interestingly enough is a fairly well-known chef in his area) had used one of her pictures on his blog without credit. It wasn't the first time it had happened to her (another blogger taking her content and posting it as his own), nor was it the first time the plagiariser had used pictures from another site (without credit).

Many blogs are covered by a "Creative Commons" license or something similar. According to the website, this means with regards to attribution

You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).   

My two questions:

How do those of you who blog deal with using material from other blogs or websites? If the blog you are "borrowing" from does not specify anything about attributions, do you still feel the need to credit the site/author? (Personally, I couldn't imagine not crediting, but people interpret things in different ways.)

If you blog, how would you deal with someone who "borrowed" your work without permission or without credit?

[jumanggy]

Hi Rona! To answer:

1. I always credit+link, even if I have made significant changes and they don't specify any terms for attribution. But the picture should be my own. If I haven't made any changes (or just minor ones) at all to a recipe, I don't rewrite anything: I link straight away. I let the author know via comment or e-mail.

I think crediting authors is a common-sense way of keeping the peace in the blog universe, and fosters new friendships. (Truth is, I rarely borrow ideas from other blogs these days.)

2. I've been lucky in that people have always asked permission. But if they pass my work as their own, beyond flagging the site or writing an e-mail, I wouldn't know what else to do. I would take comfort in the fact that it would probably be some sorry-ass site doing that.

[Miriam Kresh]

I just found this thread. As a new blogger, it's been valuable, although review and critique are not in my mind right now. Diner Girl's comments seem to have answered Chufi's question most completely. In fact, I have printed them out and kept them against the day I might need to think the issue over.

Regarding Presenatrin's question on how one deals with plagiarism: I've had an online article appropriated and presented as an interview with me by an e-magazine I'd never heard of. I wouldn't have known except that once I indulged in the narcissistic pleasure of Googling my own name. I wrote and expressed my displeasure, but never heard back from them - of course. Once something goes online, is there any way to prevent plagiarism? I doubt it.

Miriam

[Holly Moore]

My pics often get grabbed. Most times people ask, sometimes they don't. When I track the latter group down, most don't realize they did anything wrong.

Though they are wrong, their sense is that it such pic are public domain. There was no intent to plagiarize - and just about everyone I have contacted has gladly attributed the pics to HollyEats.

[jumanggy]

Hey, there's something I've always wondered about: is there any easy way (or any way at all, besides policing the whole internet manually) to make sure your pictures aren't being stolen?