FAIR Media: Understanding, but just on our terms?
Steve Safran October 12th, 2006
Just returned from the FAIR Media Council’s “Connections Day,” an event on Long Island dedicated to bringing community members together with the media for good conversations, all in the name of understanding. Unfortunately, understanding was not on the mind of one of the gentlemen who shared a panel with me and three others. Thus, the discussion billed as “Blogging: The Power of Citizen Journalism” became yet another Traditional Media vs The Big Bad Bloggers debate. Sad, because the public came out to hear the media talk about co-operation and there we were defending blogging against one decidedly old school former journalist. Still, props to Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association who was on the panel and was to blame for me being on it as well. Liza Sabater, the publisher of culturekitchen.com helped the audience get a grasp on the importance of blogging. “Blogs are changing the responsibility and process of writing and reading,” Liza said. (I haven’t heard a better Blog 101 summary yet.) Prof. Norm Prusslin from Stony Brook University discussed how he’s educating students to be good media consumers. Jim Cameron, president of Cameron Communications unfortunately took the panel down the bunnyhole by decrying anonymous blogs and posters, and calling for registration and “real names” on comments without any sense of how to mandate such a process. I suggested the occasional hater is a small price to pay for 65 million bloggers voicing their opinion. (And I’ve paid that price.) Jim said: “No, it’s not.” I had written a much longer, considerably more self-righteous column about that, but I’ll let Jim summarize for himself with his own quote: “I’m in favor of free speech as long as it’s responsible,” said Jim without any sense of the inherent irony in the statement. Ask Cory what it’s like to be on a panel with me when I get all self-righteous and rant against the old guard… it looks something like this:
(Photo by Dan Shelley, who may or may not wish credit.)
21 Comments Add your own
1. Cory | October 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Ooooooh my, I recognize THAT face.
Get ‘em, Safran.
2. thedetroitchannel | October 12th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
nice tie
3. Frank Catalano | October 12th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Sorry, Steve. I know Jim, worked with him (as a freelancer) when he was ND at The Source and when he was a pioneering sysop at CompuServe’s Journalism Forum.
No one has the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.
And some bloggers are doing just that. That’s not free speech. That’s anarchy. And juvenile to boot.
Now, I don’t know if that was Jim’s point. But if it was, I’m all for it. With free speech, and freedom, comes reponsibility. You have to be willilng to stand behind your comments.
4. Robert Cox | October 13th, 2006 at 4:52 am
Steve,
Thanks for coming down. Unfortunately, Cameron was sitting off to your site and could not see “the face”. Had he I am sure he would have backed down. I know I would
5. Safran | October 13th, 2006 at 5:23 am
Frank: I completely agree. I have stood behind every comment I’ve ever made. I can’t stand the anonymous haters. Nobody’s going to come out in SUPPORT of that kind of childishness.
This was more of a what-should-be-mandated debate. I was trying to point out that the audience can separate the wheat from the chaff. The context was trust in a traditional news source versus an anonymous blog. Seems to me the audience can figure that one out.
And you’ll note Cory and I have had a similar debate before - I absolutely believe a lawsuit is coming because of this garbage. I’m all for standing behind your words. I’m baffled by those who don’t, except in rare instances. I’m not opposed to moderated comments. I think there’s a good amount of responsible behavior in that.
But if there are people who don’t want to register their names on their sites and comments, I sure don’t want a universal rule telling them they can’t. They’re called “flamers” for a reason - they burn really quickly, don’t last, and in the end are of little consequence.
6. thedetroitchannel | October 13th, 2006 at 5:46 am
what’s wrong with yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theatre if the damn place is on FIRE!!!?
or are you suppose to sit there and think, hmmm, maybe this is just part of the show?
7. Jaci Clement | October 13th, 2006 at 6:22 am
Gentlemen:
The debate that ensues here is entirely what the event was about… . public debate and a place to air opinions and counterpoints, live and in person, without the safety net of being removed from live public reaction. ‘Tis what makes democracy great… yet so little of it is happening in America today.
The upshot? Expect more heated exchanges on Oct. 18, 2007. Only the best of breed are invited to be panelists, and whether you like it or not, you’re on the list.
8. Adam | October 13th, 2006 at 7:22 am
I don’t see the issue here. Don’t most folk reading through a blog recognize the that anonymous posters opted out on a bit of credibility in order to remain under cover? I think it’s a bit like carving a claim into a bathroom stall. You may know the John Doe who is being slandered and can take the info as verification, or you can ignore it as unsubstantiated. But, back at the bar if a guy introduces himself and presents some unfortunate information about John Doe and points out a couple of other people who can coroborate the claim I’m far more willing to listen (you should know I’ve had my suspicions about John Doe).
9. tish grier | October 13th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Steve: could you please post links to events like this before they happen? It would be nice to know about them and possibly attend (as there are so few events of this sort that are reasonably priced.)
oh, and it’s nice to know what you look like now. next time you’re out at Harvard, and I’m out there too, I’ll be sure to say hello. I know we’ve crossed paths before, but to me you were just some guy
10. Steve Safran | October 13th, 2006 at 7:42 am
Jackie: Thank you again for the lively debate and opportunity for the exchange of ideas. You’re right - this is what it’s all about. I’ll be honored to be back in ‘07.
Tish: I am flattered that you still agree to see me, given that you now know what I look like. I am still, however, “some guy.”
11. Steve Safran | October 13th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Also- I had put up a link, as I’m trying to with all LR appearances:
http://www.lostremote.com/2006/10/06/upcoming-lost-remote-panel-appearances/
Come to NAB at the end of October!
12. Frank Catalano | October 13th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Steve: I’d agree it’s lunacy to “mandate” registration and real names on blogs and comments. I can’t see it being enforceable in any realistic way without some government agency like the FCC licensing blogs, and that’s a Really Bad Idea. (I rather like slashdot’s approach to dealing with the lack of credibility of anonymity, allowing you to set your filter not to show anonymous comments and labelling then “anonymous coward.”)
I guess I just wouldn’t have come down so hard on Jim. Perhaps what he’s looking for is, if some blogs want to be “citizen journalism,” part of journalism is transparency about who you are and what your agenda is. You and I agree anonymous blogs and comments should be perceived to be less credible than the rest. Unless there’s a darned good reason for anonymity, as there is occasionally the use for anonymous sources in the old school.
Either that, or Jim has gotten as cranky as I have as I’ve grown older. But I always hope for the best.
13. Safran | October 13th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Agreed. I don’t mean to sound like I’m coming down on Jim. I strongly disagree with him. No harm there. He disagrees with me, and I respect that. This is why standing behind your name matters: you can disagree with someone AND respect them and their opinion at the same time. Anonymously, it’s just an insult.
I’ve pretty much stopped responding to anonymous stuff here. I’m more interested in helping journalists.
14. Jim Cameron | October 13th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Folks…
Thanks for the chance to “defend myself” on my seemingly outrageous call for “responsible free speech”.
As Frank Catalano has already told you, I have experience with this issue dating back to 1982 when I launched “The Journalism Forum - JForum” on CompuServe.
Google the case “Cubby vs CompuServe” to find the precent setting lawsuit over free speech that involved JForum in 1991. Trust me… I know about the issues of online libel.
By “responsible” I mean taking ownership of what you post. By attaching a name to your post you are saying “I’m answerable for what I’ve said”. Anonymous posts hold no such ownership of their words and are, thereby, less credible… but no less damaging.
The panel we were on was billed as “Citizen Journalism”. There’s no license needed to be a “journalist” beyond the First Amendment. But whether you’re a blogger or broadcast reporter, I see you equally responsible for your reporting.
JIM CAMERON
http://www.mediatrainer.tv
15. Safran | October 13th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Jim:
Thank you for your reply. I don’t disagree with you on a single point. Your experience speaks for itself.
I completely agree that people should be responsible for what they write. I have taken people to task for anonymous slander here at LR. It’s cheap, easy and cowardly.
The trouble comes when we decide what is and what is not “responsible.” There are countries in which advocating an alternative to the existing system of government would be deemed “irresponsible.” And blogging is, after all, an international system. So who gets to decide what’s responsible?
The problem also comes, as was discussed on our panel, when there are anonymous blogs that are doing excellent work. There are bloggers who need to remain anonymous for reasons beyond cowardice.
Thank you again for your rebuttal. I look forward to more of this vigorous debate. That’s what Lost Remote’s all about.
Steve
16. hot young porn pictures&hellip | February 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
indian sex girl free indian porn movies and pics…
gay mature daddy fuck…
17. drunk moms pics&hellip | February 22nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
phim sex mien phi…
infant mri risks premature baby apnea…
18. i want your flowers like &hellip | February 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
naked girls juping on trampoleis…
bouncy tits videos…
19. sakmara.com&hellip | March 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
cefana.com…
rojara.com…
20. head penis sizes&hellip | May 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
picture errected penis…
viagra website…
21. kassstion | November 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 am
EC214dffd3CNdgs
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed