Blogging policies and traditional journalism are a bit like trying to write a peace-treaty for Israel and Palestine to sign. While technically possible, the extent to which one will understand the other is dubious. While my writing here is based on the principal that I work for a newspaper, I consider this more an outlet for the meta aspects of my job. I don’t write about my community, my writing, or my opinions of what I am paid to write about. That would be inappropriate. What I do posit are opinions of the inner workings of a newspaper.
While I don’t generally talk about the truly bad stuff, that’s less me trying to protect my employer and more a belief that negativity feeds negativity. With that in mind, I do feel that criticism of the M(ain)S(tream)M(edia) is often well placed, as we hold everyone accountable but ourselves. We expect a certain amount of transparency in the workings of public entities, communication from private entities and people to talk to us. But we don’t talk to people. That is not to say anyone is hiding anything, but releasing subscription numbers and discussing ad revenue with people when it comes up is a far cry from transparent. Blogging breaks down the fourth wall of journalism.
Not sure how the editor decided to run one story and not the other? Wonder why a reporter isn’t covering a certain topic anymore? How are beats chosen? What stories get scrapped before making it to the paper? Was it for lack of resources or interest that they were scrapped? These could all be published for nearly free by blogging. Of course, it takes time to write cogently about these things, and that takes time. But keeping the community informed as to editorial choices is the single greatest act of transparency. If an editor cannot survive that kind of scrutiny, perhaps they should be doing something else.
Of course, it’s a bit like the President of the U.S. Sometimes hard (read: unpopular) decisions have to be made that one believes are for the good of the people, or community in the case of a paper. There’s a reason we live in a representative democracy and not a true democracy. There’s also a reason businesses are still allowed to be totalitarian regimes. What’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I just think newspapers should not be allowed to be totalitarian regimes.
