The ethics of blogging.

Published on January 24, 2005 By dharmagrl In Blogging

I've been blogging for almost a year now, and during that time I've seen some questionable stories told in order to demonstrate the writers point.

Stories that are passed off as being factual, but have such big holes and discrepancies in them that it becomes obvious to most readers that it can only be fiction. Wild accusations are made against all kinds of people and agencies...accusations that, with a little research, are proven to be untrue, yet the writer still claims that they are the 'truth', that this really happened to them despite all the hard evidence to the contrary.

To me, it's perfectly fine to create a scenario to demonstrate your point, as long as you state that it's fiction. Trying to pass off a fictional piece as fact (even when the writer has been found out in a lie) only serves to undermine the author's credibility. Tell a lie once about something, and I'm not likely to believe a word you say subsequently.

I want to know what you think, JU. Is it ethically okay to make up a story and not label it as such? Is it okay to write fiction and tell everyone that it's fact? Given that this site is syndicated and is easily accessible to the public, is it ethical to make up events and publish them as the 'truth'?

What are your blogging ethics?

Comments (Page 3)

Myrrander

on Jan 25, 2005

What interests me is the need here at JU to have a "town hall" thread every time somebody writes an article that sets off the "BS-ometer." I suppose sometimes it can be a good thing, but all too often it turns into a bash fest. This one hasn't done that -- yet -- but I've watched it happen quite a few times around here.

No real judgement here, just an observation.

bakerstreet

on Jan 25, 2005

" What interests me is the need here at JU to have a "town hall" thread every time somebody writes an article that sets off the "BS-ometer." I suppose sometimes it can be a good thing, but all too often it turns into a bash fest. This one hasn't done that -- yet -- but I've watched it happen quite a few times around here."

BakerStreet votes to turn this into a jesusstayscrunchy-bashing thread, and offers to supply the torches for the townsfolk.

dharmagrl

on Jan 25, 2005

Well what got me more than the article was some of his added in comments to the comments that he has up.... From reading that I find it easier to believe he was the aggressor than the assailant. Don't people realize that even the way you show yourself shows a lot about whether you might be credible or not?

I too saw what he had written, and he really proved my point for me.

It would be different if articles such as this were somehow designated as hyperbolic articles to prove the inanity of the law (as one such article could well have been)...but when they are promoted as a life experience...well, it undermines one's credibility a tad.

And that's exactly what I was trying to demonstrate. If he had said ' imagine this....' and had written the rest of it with his audience aware that it was purely fictional, then I wouldn't have had an issue with it. To try and pass it off as fact , though....that's what I consider unethical.

This one hasn't done that -- yet -- but I've watched it happen quite a few times around here.

No, and it won't turn into a bashing thread because I won't let it. I told everyone the rules at the start of the year, and I'm sticking to them. As for my writing about it...well, I thought it bullshit, and I called it as such. I see a lot of stuff that I think is BS written here, Myrr, and I keep my trap shut about most of it....but this one was so fantastical that I couldn't keep it in.

Baker....you're a naughty, naughty boy!

shadesofgrey

on Jan 25, 2005

No different than a certain satirical someone, I suppose.

dharmagrl

on Jan 25, 2005

No different than a certain satirical someone, I suppose.

Hmmm...I suppose not, but the satirical someone was at least somewhat comedic. The articles I'm referring to were in no way funny or even trying to be funny.

bakerstreet

on Jan 25, 2005

shadesofgrey

on Jan 25, 2005

Hmmm...I suppose not, but the satirical someone was at least somewhat comedic.

You didn't always think so...

As per my earlier post--my BS-ometer didn't go off and I missed the ensuing drama, so I really can't comment--I just noticed a similarly to the comments about fictious writing with a certain past drama.

dharmagrl

on Jan 25, 2005

You didn't always think so...

No, I didn't. There were a couple of incidents that had me giggling, but that was before it all got out of hand.

However, this article wasn't trying to be funny. There was no satire or humor involved. The author was claiming that what happened was fact....and I have some issues with those 'facts'.

shadesofgrey

on Jan 25, 2005

The author was claiming that what happened was fact....and I have some issues with those 'facts'.

As did the satirical one--he still does. He'd never say "This is satire."

I guess I just don't understand why this particular incident got under your skin when it happens frequently around here (the beefing up of stories to make them sound better).

My point is simply that we will never know what is true and what isn't true on the internet. For all you know I could be a sixth grader having great craic taking the piss--or I could be a world reknown astronaut--you only know what I tell you and you can believe it or not...I tend to believe a lot of what I see and hear--but I'm sort of naive like that...

Sorry that was a bit waffly--hopefully you got the point, but I understand if you found it incomprehensible.

dharmagrl

on Jan 25, 2005

I guess I just don't understand why this particular incident got under your skin when it happens frequently around here (the beefing up of stories to make them sound better).

I'm not entirely sure why it got to me either. Perhaps it was because it painted the cops in a pretty unflattering light, perhaps it was because it made the writer out to be the innocent victim, perhaps it was because it was so damn far fetched....I really don't know why. I know that I, like I said, read a lot of things around here that I think are BS and they don't get to me, but this one did. Perhaps it was because some of what was alleged to have happened was so far over the top that I felt the need to raise the BS flag.

Sorry that was a bit waffly--hopefully you got the point, but I understand if you found it incomprehensible.

No, I got it! I'm sorry if I upset you by writing this article about it; it wasn't supposed to be entirely about that one particular article...I was trying to get a perspective on other blogger's POV's regarding what they consider to be ethical/unethical.

David...thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment. I sincerely mean that....it means a lot to me that there's no animosity between you and I now

You too Baker...I always feel somewhat privileged to have you leave me a comment!

UBoB

on Jan 25, 2005

God, I hope none of the stories I read or the opinions I read, or the soap operas I read are based on fact. Can you imagine if life were really this nasty? If it were, I'd take the gas pipe.

Myrrander

on Jan 25, 2005

No, you've kept it very nice, Dharma, I wasn't coming down on you for anything.

dharmagrl

on Jan 25, 2005

No, you've kept it very nice, Dharma, I wasn't coming down on you for anything.

I know you weren't, Myrr. I think that we know each other well enough to speak pretty plainly to each other...if you thought I was leading a lynch mob (for want of a better term), you'd have called me on it - and vice versa.

UBob - I believe half of what I read until I get to know the person a little better. That being said, there are some people who blog here who wouldn't know the truth if it smacked them in the face.

aeryck

on Jan 26, 2005

Let's get out our walking sticks, it's time for campfire tales...hahahahah

I am truly sorry about my dumb link, ...update.....incase you want to just go direct, I hope this workz....
Congratulations on the year a blogging...I about the same....my fourth blogg....a little slow....I find that busythumbs is very, very quick and full of pictures...like a visual holiday..... oh the link, sorry....here goes..... Link - the picture I directly linked to which is apparently not correct practice is under the side heading: 'children of God'

Have a great weekend, just two days to go.......

shadesofgrey

on Jan 26, 2005

No, I got it! I'm sorry if I upset you

No, not upset at all--just baffled...but that's a common state of mind lately

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!