Bloggers need to remember that the same standards of truth they applied to Dan Rather also apply to themselves.
Lt. Cmdr Smash, in a recent post on Sept 21st, reported the disgusting attack on a soldier who was on medical leave from Iraq at a Toby Keith concert.
The problem is that Smash has implied that the jerk is a "peace activist". He quips in his original post:
"But I thought peace activists were supposed to be, you know, peaceful..."
At the time, I pointed out:
"In fairness, there is nothing in the article that indicates that the person who committed the assault was a "peace activist". For all you know... It could even be a veteran or perhaps the brother of a fallen soldier."
And as it turns out, the jerk is actually a veteran, although it is still unknown whether he is a peace activist. But already the Blogsphere is starting to pick up the story as Peace Activist Arrested for Beating. There has been an assumption of fact without evidence.
The jerk may indeed turn out to be a "peace activist", or he could just turn out to be an A******. Either way, the problem is the rampant jumping to conclusions, not the actual assumption itself.
While news-blogging has it's strengths, as shown by Rathergate, it's primary weakness is the human tendency toward rumor and gossip. It tends to descend to a level of group-think very quickly.
When the truth comes out about this incident, it may be months down the road when this thread is long forgotten. But the assumption that people who have read Smash's site will come away with is that "peace activists" like to beat up soldiers who are on leave. That assumption may turn out to completely false, but it still will become a "fact" in many people's minds. And in if you read the comments on Smash's posts, you will see that this is already the case.
I enjoy reading Smash's blog everyday. For the most part, Smash's posts have always had factual integrity. This post was an aberration. Smash just made a careless quip. And frankly I'm being an ass and making a mountain out of a molehill.
But it did remind me that if Bloggers want respectability as a news source then they are going to have to meet the same high standards as everyone else. In fact, they will have to meet even higher standards, because as a new form of journalism it has to prove itself before it's taken seriously.
Like it or not, Smash is now a "talking head", and has claimed the title of "pundit". Now that he is branching out into radio and other areas, what he says carries some weight. People will trust that what he says is the truth. But, with that trust comes responsibility. News should be reported and commented on, but not created. Otherwise the pundit in question loses credibility. Implying that the guy who assaulted the soldier was a peace activist without any evidence to that fact was wrong.
It's the same as Dan Rather reporting that Bush's record in the Guard was "sugarcoated" on the basis of flimsy evidence. With the difference that Rather actually did have some evidence, even though it turned out to be forged. Smash had no evidence other than an apparent and understandable dislike of "peace activists".
Fortunately, as Dan Rather found out to his dismay, bloggers do have the support of hundreds or even thousands of people to keep them on the level. Namely other bloggers. Us. We can ensure that Smash never has to owe an apology to Rather. (A horrifying prospect.)
Now when are we going to get some more Haiku poetry?
Comments