What’s Your Code of Ethics?

Blogging is at a turning point. There seem to be three different types of bloggers: those who use it as an online diary, those who view themselves as journalists, and those who view themselves as journalists without all the trappings that traditional media types are bound by.

My personal blog is firmly in the first segment, but I'd probably put myself in the last category to an extent in my "work" writing. I started out as a journalism major, but couldn't ever see myself as anything other than a columnist; I'm too opinionated to subvert that side of myself enough to report news in an impartial voice. However, there are still some pieces of traditional journalism that I know I stick to when it comes to how I conduct myself when writing about news or products.

I first started thinking about personal codes of ethics when looking at the insanely detailed ethics statement Kara Swisher has for BoomTown. All the All Things Digital writers have one, but it was Kara's I noted first, mainly because it discloses so much information. She lists everything, including her partner's job, how that would or would not affect her coverage, all her potential financial interests (which I assume the WSJ requires), and essentially leaves nothing for readers to question.

That level of transparency seems startling, but at the same time, more bloggers might benefit from it. I try to review any personal interactions I've had with a company or person before I write an article that might affect my perception. Even in the seemingly free environment of expressing my opinion, I think there are some things that might be viewed as having an axe to grind.

Two recent tempests in a teapot came to light recently that made me think even more about personal codes of ethics. While there are advantages and disadvantages to writing for a multi-author blog rather than on your own, there are also some drawbacks, which led to this week's situation at Valleywag. Back on 1 April, Jordan Golson wrote a piece venting about his job situation, a hint at the cut in the amount Gawker writers would be paid for pageviews that would be announced later in the month. It's not a piece I would ever have written myself, since I don't think it's wise to bite the proverbial hand that feeds you, but Valleywag editor Owen Thomas left it up.

Two weeks later, Jordan Golson is out of a job. While TechCrunch claims the pink slip was a direct result of the 1 April post, Golson himself admits in the TechCrunch comments that it was more likely a result of his subsequent lack of enthusiasm after the pay cut. Either way, it's an issue for Golson himself. Would a personal code of ethics have prevented him from publicly airing his complaints about pay? What about his admitted "lack of enthusiasm" for his job after the pay cut?

The other situation, coincidentally, involves TechCrunch itself. Drama 2.0 pointed out a potential conflict of interest involving TechCrunch and Data Portability this week. The the post alone demonstrates how some readers react to a lack of transparency in business dealings. If Michael Arrington had written a post that said, "Hey, I've gotten to be friends with Chris Saad and having spent time talking to him I'm going to devote a mess of TechCrunch resources to helping this cause out. They haven't decided how they are going to incorporate yet, but we are going to give half the money to them that's left from our big party to further the cause," wouldn't that have looked a lot better for both parties? If, in that situation, TechCrunch had issued a press release about their involvement in sponsoring the contest and the donation instead of posting it as news on their own site, would the aura of potential conflict of interest been avoided?

Web 2.0 is an incestuous area of tech. Most of the players go to all the same conferences, hang out at all the same blogs, and have ended up in each others' pockets. It probably becomes very difficult to know what should be divulged to keep things transparent. And while I fought the proposed code of ethics floated last year at this time, I wonder if it isn't time that each and every one of us follows the lead of the writers at All Things Digital, disclosing every possible thing that could be construed as a bias. If we want to be taken more seriously as journalists and get the same privileges at conferences and events, then maybe we need to start acting like journalists.