This is a group of writers sharing comments with 5,000 observers, and the entire world.

Well, duh.

But I’ll continue to speculate on occasion, tho not recklessly.

I get a steady stream of news, tidbits, rumors from people every week that I decline to put on LG because of ‘journalistic ethical standards.’  When I do speculate, it’s with a consideration on what’s helpful, what’s potentially damaging, what’s responsible, what’s going to further understanding.

I know you and I don’t agree on my handling of the heroin story but that was a case in which I did phone an important source (the police chief) before blogging it. No, I didn’t verify his facts, but that’s where I think the line is between the blogging we do here (”Police chief and drug researcher say we have a heroin problem and I agree”) and what a good journalist would do (”Heroin in Northfield: what are the facts?”).  I think both types of writing are valid.

On that thread, Griff and others suggested that more might be accomplished if concerned business owners met as a group to express their concerns to the Chamber; then instead of finding many valid concerns dismissed or minimized as it passes through the eye of the needle, the organization might move toward some productive reform.

On the other hand, blogging and online activity is a surreal cultural event that people are still struggling to understand (as your question implies). When we blog, we often sit in front of a screen, alone, and we may be tempted to say things we might not say face-to-face. So in the back of our minds, blogging may feel a bit like journaling, but in his presentations on blogging, Griff sometimes reminds people that it’s not a private journal. My point is not that you treat it as such (you don’t), but the online phenomenon sometimes results in strangers expressing opinions to strangers in honest, open, and direct ways they might not otherwise express themselves to strangers or in public.

Where this phenomenon meets the small-town community context is one way in which we may feel the friction or potential conflict. Because people are sometimes blunt or very up-front online, moreso than face-to-face, it’s good that people (like you) raise questions about rules and where to draw the lines.

It’s fine and true to say that kindness is always appropriate, but online, we often operate in a very different way. Strangers drop in to a conversation to make a comment at a certain point, and then drop out, whereas, in the “real world,” if the conversation were taking place in a pub, we might be uncomfortable if the person at the next table were listening-in on the conversation, and then put in their two-cents. We might ask the stranger their name. If a neighbor popped in on the conversation, we might ask how the landscaping project is going in their backyard, and how the spouse and kids are doing; but online, we strip away many of those polite rituals and pleasantries.

It’s those rituals and pleasantries that embody a great deal of what we sometimes think of as “civility.” So even when online discussion seems relatively civil, it often appears to be much more blunt and in-your-face.

So you might imagine how those who don’t blog, and who would rather keep the conversation from letting the cat out of the bag, would much rather have a phone call, which can be structured according to their rules and pleasantries. Keep that cat in the bag. Follow the script.

But on the other hand, sometimes raw-seeming online discussion can easily spread gossip and be damaging, so the ease of online discussion should be used responsibly. If a phone call can clear up matters of fact and avoid passing on a rumor, better to act as if the world has more means of communication than online, and to use them, than to act as if blogging alone is sufficient. It’s not.

Putting journalistic standards first might also help protect or restore common courtesy.

I like informal, commentary, blah blah blah, what’s this going on, what do you think about this, etc. The bloggers that run this site already do seem to check into things and are pretty responsible, I think.

Let’s not make this a boring site, please. Let’s not make it into a list of upcoming events (without opinion). Randy, have you tried Northfield.org? That might be what you want.

IMHO: this blog is much more civil than it could be or than many other blogs.

Sorry to be late to the party, but I’d like to weigh in on the side of common courtesy in posts related to the local (geographic) community, regardless of the conventions emerging in the disembodied online community. I “get it” that blog posts can be written and posted faster than the speed of thought, but I still don’t find that entirely an advance for human culture. (I hear matches striking.) At the same time, I also appreciate the time and reflection that you and many others put into trying to be fair and responsible in creating a civil conversation.

Perhaps a different version of your original question is whether a blog like this one, that claims a community as its audience, should be held to a more rigorous standard than that of a conversation in the wee hours at the Cow, after adult beverages have been consumed. As you and your colleauges embark on your citizen journalism project, I hope you’ll focus first on the conventions and ethics of journalism, and then very secondarily on whatever wisdom of the crowds model you are developing. Adhering to standards that require independent verification of claims and sources *prior to* publishing would go a long way to minimizing factual inaccuracies and mea culpas. It seems to me that half-accurate speculation is the source of the most distressing exchanges here. Putting journalistic standards first might also help protect or restore common courtesy, without requiring you (or others) to pull your punches on issues where you have the material to back up your opinions.

I, for one, would love it if Prof. Witt would provide a primer on what we should expect of journalism and journalists, as well as some thoughts on which, if any, of those expectations ought rightly be applied to people who publish in this sort of forum. Since the old tools of libel, slander and copyright laws don’t seem nimble enough to keep up with the pace of blogging, maybe new, community-based rules can be more effective.

I responded to you but the comment must have died along the way.

I think comments, in general, tend to be more relaxed and conversational than let’s say, blog posts. But, comments stay around “forever” and so it depends on how you feel about it.

I’ve read some very long, eloquent comments which irritated me since they seemed prepared, instead of conversational. I’ve thought “Come on, this is a conversation, rather than a place for you to present your already prepared speech”, for example.

Tracy: No, the rules don’t change. Posting online is no different than putting something on the radio or in the newspaper. Why should the rules be different?

Response #1: Baseball is no different than polo. They’re both played on a grassy field and involve hitting an object with a stick. Why should the rules be different?

Response #2: If we all agree that posting online is no different than putting something on radio or newspaper, are you going to start lobbying the Northfield News and KYMN to telephone people before they print or say anything about them?

I don’t know how I would handle it as a moderator, though. That’s a tough one. If someone crosses the Griff line, perhaps that should equal 50 lashes with a wet noodle and/ or mandatory coffee…

Some of us write very much like we talk… is that a good thing? Me thinks no.

As a sidebar, it’s interesting to watch people’s writing styles as they become more obvious over time. How they will pose a confrontation to be not quite so confrontational, how they will challenge someone Griff has told them not to bicker with, how they will choose when and when not to confront with an actual name.

It’s also interesting to know from comments made elsewhere (not online) how many people follow LG and yet never comment, although being intensely involved as a reader.

Here’s a question … Do we write, here, the way we talk in a real/live conversation?

Holly Cairns April 13, 2008 6:39 pm

Oh, and David, by the way, how I think it’s done for bloggers: If you have a blog, you can see incoming links (where people talked about you via link) on your blog dashboard.

Also, if you want, you can monitor traffic for keywords. The Vodpod creator, Mark Hall, is in California. He contacted me within minutes of my blog post on Vodpod.

>> Mark Hall said on Holly’s blog
>>
>> I’m the founder of Vodpod, and keep track of comments about the
>> service on blogs, twitter, etc.

Bloggers don’t think “phone.” They think mentioning someone is an honor. Honestly. IMHO.

Posting online is no different than putting something on the radio or in the newspaper. Why should the rules be different?

That’s like asking why Alaska should be cold and Florida should be warm.

You can dismiss me, but I’m right. I guess it depends on age. People over a certain age don’t get it.

It didn’t occur to me to call because I had enough information to formulate my opinion (although I have an open mind if *new* information comes in). I didn’t need to ask permission to say what I wanted to say.

I’ll expand a little. In the online world (which is where Locally Grown lives), telephones almost might not exist. It didn’t occur to me to call, because calling simply isn’t on the radar when conversations take place online. In the eighteen years I’ve been participating in online dialog, I’ve only called two people, and once it was at their invitation.

The fact that Locally Grown is Northfield-centric changes the rules somewhat, but I’m not sure how.

The assumptions I’m operating under are that, when people come to LoGro to read, visit, or discuss, they would not bring with them the expectation that discourse here would function like a town meeting (or a church potluck). What I have found is that for many people, LoGro is the first blog they’ve followed, or the first online discussion they’ve joined. So my expectation of their expections was erroneous.

What I’m trying to explore, in this post, is the question of whether or not a different communication medium brings with it different rules, conventions, expectations (I think it does)… and, how those should be modified in a case like ours, when the people I’m talking with online are also people I could run into at the grocery store or next school board meeting.

Dave, what it sounds like you’re saying is that medium, schmedium, you should always call someone before you write about them. Is that what you really mean? If so, why do you think that?