You’re right on Professor Meyer. That’s just the only article I found quickly, and I’m not sure about that stance, as well. I do believe one should honor their employer, but that requires an employer worthy of one’s honor.

I can understand PR Week supporting Keith’s desire to blog. He does, after all, interact with and cover blogs. His participation will, in the eyes of blog believers, increase his ethos. His criticisms, should he write them, will also carry greater validity. Not that his ethos was low, mind you. Still, the act of blogging could pose conflicts for Keith and other journalists.

On the issue of transparency, I guess we have to define what transparency is in this case. I’m going with “The full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information.” (Source) Expounding upon that, transparency requires the presence of openness and a comprehensive forthcoming by those individuals and institutions. In some instances it even requires predictability. Think financial and Sarbanes-Oxley. The goal is to provide clarity so that the author’s actions may be understood, and even anticipated. Although, I don’t know that we need to be able to anticipate Keith’s.

If we are talking about transparency in a comprehensive sense – the revelation of all Keith’s (or any blogger’s) stances, prejudices or bias on any given issue – then it will have to occur (if at all) on a case by case basis.

From here I’m guessing we just need to read Keith and the other 94 blogging journalists. From those observations, perhaps we can determine the positives and negatives of journalists blogging.

Okay, I need to lie down now and put a cold compress on my forehead. Sorry for the long comment and thanks for helping me think this through.

By the way, Professer Meyer was really focused on a different issue (responsibility to employers, etc.) and I’m not sure I’m on side with him on that front.

As I was responding to Terry, Keith was posting a comment, too.

So, looking at Keith’s post, A rare admission of bleeding, Keith shares that he has thought of this, too.

Thanks for sharing that, Keith, and your comments.

Three points, among the many, I take away from that post are:

(1) “News is its own beast, and the following the formula for a fair, accurate, and informative news story is something I take very seriously.”

(2) “It is my utmost concern that everything I write is clean and fair.”

and

(3) “Maintaining a blog can only help me better understand the market for my reporting duties, no?”

The first two are laudable and, of course, good to hear. For the third, I think it can do that. This is all so new, I look forward to seeing how this will impact and be intertwined with your traditional journalism practices. Seems we have number 95 in the list of blogs to watch for this type of research. I’m tellin’ ya’ … this is a thesis or dissertation topic just waiting for a student to dive into.

I like that your blog may serve as an extension, although not official, of your PRWeek.com writing and reporting responsibilities for PR Week. It is also interesting that you will use your blog to solicit pitches. Hmm? Somewhow I think you are about to be bombarded with emails.

Thanks for commenting, Keith.

CyberJournalist.net has lists of j-blogs. One list offers links to 94 independent journalist blogs.

CyberJournalist.net also offers two posts that relate to this issue.

The Hartford Courant shut down a journalist’s blog and J. D. Lasica offers reasons why they should be allowed to blog. For a counterpoint, University of Illinois journalism professor Eric Meyer steps up with reasons why journalists should not blog.

Thinking about all this brings up several potential issues. Allowing a journalist to blog may help us get to know them a bit better – in all the good ways. On the flip side, the journalist risks tipping any potential prejudices and bias they may carry along. Let us remember that everyone has prejudices. Everyone is biased in one way or another. I’m not talking about the pejorative versions of prejudice and bias. I’m talking about the realistic natural opinions we all bring to the table. Hey, to deny they exist is futile.

The act of blogging publicly also runs the risk (or would we call this bonus?) of a journalist revealing any agendas they may carry into their reporting. All of the above are possible. It is an interesting question.

In the Lasica/Meyer exchange, one issue raised was loyalty to one’s master. Strangely, that master may not be journalistic ethics, alone. It may be the master’s dictum as to what is proper practice or the company line.

I’m going to think about this a bit more. Sounds like a good topic for a post. Thanks, Terry.

Thanks for the extensive write up. Too kind. You’re the second one to question the background/font colors. Readership complaints may obviate my aesthetical attachments to it. We’ll see.

As per Terry’s very fair and important question, I posted what I hope is an informative response here.

I think it will be worthwhile for your students, some of whom may become journalists, to check it out.

Best,
Keith

One issue remains for me. I still haven’t quite got my head around the idea of a leading PR reporter writing stories on PRWeek.com, presumably honouring the time-honoured strictures of journalism, and then blogging about the same stories without the same fetters. It’s not that I want to quell any conversations or suggest that journalists shouldn’t blog. However, do not the personal and presumably honest opinions of the blogger somehow colour how we might view his contributions to PRWeek.com? I’m still wrestling with this idea of journalists blogging on their own beats. Any thoughts?