Sourcing information to websites: Who speaks for a website?

[DeepModem Mom]

Annenberg School for Communication at USC
Who speaks for a website?
COMMENTARY: Reporters ought to be more thorough when sourcing information to websites. The newspaper model doesn't always apply online.
By Robert Niles
Posted: 2007-09-26

Markos Moulitsas at DailyKos this week raised an important issue to which all journalists who cover the Web ought to show greater sensitivity. Moulitsas complained about a Wall Street Journal article which claimed that Moulitsas' website held a position on campaign finance reform that is, in fact, the opposite of Moulitsas' position.

It's not the first time something like this has happened. This summer, Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly attacked DailyKos over selected comments and diaries that appeared on the site, claiming that the site supported those views, while never noting that those posts were from readers who have no financial or editorial relationship with the site.

With thousands of readers posting diaries on the DailyKos website each week, it's possible to attribute just about any political position to someone on the website. And there's the key: the attribution ought to be given to the person on the website, and not to the website itself.

The old newspaper/TV newsroom model no longer applies in Web communities such as DailyKos. If a report appears in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, a reporters at other papers can (and routinely do) attribute that report to "The Wall Street Journal" -- no need to provide the byline of the reporter who wrote the piece. That reporter was assigned by the paper to do the piece, paid by the paper and his or her report edited by paper employees. Therefore, any reasonable person can attribute responsibility, indeed, authorship, of that piece to the paper. That's not the way copy gets published on DailyKos, or thousands of other Web communities. On DailyKos, a reader signs up for an account and, after a one week wait, can start posting diaries (i.e., a personal blog) to the website....

***

Moulitsas has declared "no one speaks for Daily Kos other than me. Period."...

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070926niles/

[mike_c]

1. web sites should not be sources unless what they publish...

...receives editorial review before being published. PEOPLE write articles, not websites or newspapers. The author of an article is its source. Cite this as "mike_c, on DemocraticUnderground.com."

Oops, there's a problem, isn't there? People often post under pseudonyms, so the attribution points to a phantom instead of a real person who can stand behind his or her words. That makes it more tempting to cite the site since it has at least some credible reality. But the rub is that unlike major news organizations, most websites do not review the content of posted materials, or don't review them the same way that the editors of news organizations do.

In the end, one of two things needs to happen. The first is that websites must seek credibility by emulating news organizations, i.e. by shutting down the blogs and replacing them with real-- and reviewed-- journalism. Of course, that would seriously stifle the range of discourse online even if it secured its credibility.

The second alternative is for consumers of online information to understand the limitations of a free and open medium. Anyone can publish just about anything, so we need ways to assess their credibility ourselves-- the onus shifts to the reader/viewer rather than to the information provider. We must become critical and informed consumers of information. That, I fear, is likely impossible, no matter how we might wish it so.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Thanks for your post, mike_c. This is an interesting issue...

and you've addressed it well.