Blue Flag Media
David Judson, the former editor of Turkey's Hürriyet Daily News, published a column today that seems worthy of discussion. I haven't decided whether I agree with him, but I spent the past half hour thinking about it, so I figured I'd see what you think.
Here's his argument:
The most insidious enemy of good journalism is bad journalism. It is not an enemy in its own right, no more so than lousy restaurants are a threat to those that make the Michelin guide. Rather, the danger is that bad journalism invites in, and even legitimizes, governments, regulators, the courts and all manner of semi-official fronts to attempt control at what we do. This is, of course, is what Sarkozy’s little tete-a-tete with media and tech executives is all about, as with so many initiatives of Turkey’s government.
He chooses some choice local examples, then moves to international ones:
The courts may yet conclude that former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is not guilty of attempting to rape a chambermaid at New York’s Sofitel. But who can deny the trauma inflicted upon the alleged victim by the media? Her name, identity, country of origin, even the fact she may be a carrier of the AIDS virus, has now been published around the world. Should Turkey’s onetime economy czar, Kemal Derviş, have to read the years-old details of an affair he had when he was a bachelor just because for about 15 minutes the media vaunted him as Strauss-Kahn’s potential successor?
As the rogue website WikiLeaks has demonstrated, the scope of newspapers or other publishers to make judgments of an ethical nature, however you define ethical, has evaporated. Once an obscurity like Radar Online has crossed the line, even the venerable New York Times must follow or risk irrelevancy.
And here's his suggestion:
Sadly, the only institutions rushing into this vacuum of responsibility are the would-be government saviors. In Turkey they can’t guarantee the privacy of your mobile phone. They will though ban not only noxious websites but even risqué named web domains.
This is why I’d like to see action on this front, which does not involve the government. My metaphor, as suggested, is the concept of “Blue Flag Beaches,” www.blueflag.org, engineered more than 25 years ago and now present in 47 countries.
Blue Flag does not legally restrict the discharge of sewage. Use of its water quality measurements and methodology is strictly voluntary. If a country has a beach it wants to open to motorcycle racing, there is nothing Blue Flag can do. Except, to withhold the flag.
He wonders if this might work:
Imagine, for example, if Reporters without Borders and colleagues had developed ethical journalism criteria with partners around the world. Imagine if they persuaded global advertising brands to avoid media that eschew participation. The current collapse of the business models of journalism, the migration of readers online and the imperative of “click” ratings to generate advertising revenue, would suddenly convert from being the driver of irresponsible reporting to a something quite different.
How different might this paradigm be? I have no idea. But if anyone has a better idea, please send it to Sarkozy.
What do you think? Could it work? My concern is not so much forestalling my government from intervening to silence the media--we have a First Amendment for that--as trying to somehow create a wider brand identity for good journalism, since the old ways of branding it have obviously died.
I'm not even necessarily talking about "right of center" journalism; I'm just talking about figuring out which news sites are basically trustworthy sources of basically factual information. Or which ones have a track record of destroying peoples' lives for fun, and are therefore not ones I want to support in any way.
I wouldn't mind knowing that a non-governmental watchdog with a trustworthy track record has given a seal of approval to Newspaper X in a country I don't know much about. It might help me decide whether it's worth reading.
What do you think?
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Blue Flag Media
In theory, sounds ok. But where do you get the detached, Olympian certifiers? Maybe you could try crowd-sourcing à la Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if that'd work in this context. Otherwise, you're faced with the question of institutional capture, and particularly given your concern about political biases, the seemingly inexorable leftward drift of all non-explicitly non-leftist NGOs, foundations, etc., I suspect you wouldn't be happy with their ideas of reliable. (How long before George Soros creates this very organization, anyway?)
Re: Blue Flag Media
That's exactly my concern, but I wonder if there's some way around it. Must NGOs drift to the left?
Jan '11
Re: Blue Flag Media
Since they're mostly all organized around the concept of altruistic charity then yes, they must drift leftward, because that's where the wind blows them. They're like the Chinese trading junks of old: square-hulled ships designed to sail before the monsoon winds. They were perfect for going wherever the winds pushed you, but entirely useless if you wanted, or needed, to sail into the wind.
Re: Blue Flag Media
Ajax Telamônios
Since they're mostly all organized around the concept of altruistic charity then yes, they must drift leftward, because that's where the wind blows them.
What, you mean there's no tradition of altruism or charity on the right? How do you explain the fact that self-identified conservatives give so much more to charity than self-identified left-wingers? They give more money. They give more time. They give more blood. You can't persuade me that "left"="altruism and charity." It doesn't.
Jan '11
Re: Blue Flag Media
The left has made itself all about altruism, claiming the moral high ground and spouting off their high-minded rhetoric about helping the poor and downtrodden while all they really care about is the conglomeration and centralization of power. I'm not saying that they're more or better charitable givers, just that they claim to be.
Yes, those on the right are far more charitable than those on the left, and they don't feel the need to form bureaucratic organizations designed to force everyone to do what they think is right; they just go and do it, which is the American Way. NGOs are bureaucratic organizations, so their natural tendency is to drift towards centralization, and that's the territory the left has staked out for itself. The altruism is just a salve to soothe their troubled souls, I suppose, as well as a bludgeon with which to beat their opponents about the head during budget negotiations and election campaigns.
Edited on May 28, 2011 at 12:47amApr '11
Re: Blue Flag Media
You can't persuade me that "left"="altruism and charity." It doesn't.
Lest we forget that leftists, at heart, are totalitarians. A conservative charity may be religion based, but they generally don't DEMAND that others adhere to their beliefs. They give because they are following their faith. Leftists - again, generally - are motivated by moral superiority. This is fine when they stick to activities like providing basic food and medicine, building schools, etc. But when is a "progressive" ever satisfied? Eventually they get bored and must move on to new and more exciting ways to "help" people. Next thing you know they've expanded "charity" to mean fighting for world peace as human shields for terrorists. And you'd better understand that once they determine a cause to be "social justice" you'd better agree. If not, you'll become an evil pariah.
And that's what would happen with a global press NGO. Any outlet out of step with their "social justice" agenda would be treated like Israel is by the UN. Heck, look no further the the Obama Administration's attempts to marginalize Fox. That's nothing compared to how the "international community" would handle matters.
Edited on May 28, 2011 at 12:59amSep '10
Re: Blue Flag Media
Remember the recent videos in which campus lefties enthusiastically signed petitions to ban Glenn Beck et al from the airwaves? How long would it take them to use "Blue Water Media" to officially delegitimize any news source that didn't conform to the party line? About 30 seconds, I imagine. Remember, these folks usually aren't running small businesses or driving trucks. They have nothing better to do with their time.
I've found that I actually enjoy the current state of affairs in which "legitimate" news outlets compete with sleazier ones for my attention. It keeps me in doubt regarding all of them, and that's not so bad, really.
Oct '10
Re: Blue Flag Media
Do you really want an arbiter of good journalism to help find your way around a foreign land? Isn't the excitement of exploration fueled by uncertainty? You know what your going to get when you walk into McDonald's. If you're craving a fountain drink with ice, then it's the place to go. Otherwise, take your chances with the donor kebab stand. That's how one develops immunities.
Re: Blue Flag Media
This subject is as old as the hills. Back when there were no newspapers in England -- only newsletters copied by hand, circulated, and read out loud in select circles -- Ben Jonson wrote a play entitled The Staple of the News, in which he thoroughly examined this question. His conclusion: the only way to prevent the press from being scurrilous, oriented towards salacious gossip, and manipulative is to suppress it. Tocqueville reached the same conclusion in Democracy in America. The laws in France that protected "the privacy" of Dominique Strauss-Kahn hid the fact that his victims had in practice no legal recourse. Publicity, with all of its ugly ramifications, is the price we pay for transparency and the rule of law. It is a price well worth paying.
Oct '10
Re: Blue Flag Media
Wow, a Dr. Johnson reference. Now we've passed on into scholarship. Thank you professor.
Nov '10
Re: Blue Flag Media
I think there's absolutely nothing to stop any organization or individual from setting up a list of news sites it considers reliable. Then it would be up to us as news consumers to judge the value of the ratings.
May '10
Re: Blue Flag Media
If the site has Claire Berlinski, Victor Davis Hanson, or Mark Steyn; it's highly likely it's reliable. If it has all three, it's a lock.
Dec '10
Re: Blue Flag Media
Ultimately, news organizations traffic in information and nobody's going to trust an organization that suppresses information. Readers/viewers will always go to the one they perceive is giving them the most information, particularly in the cases of gossip and tabloid news.
There has been a successful effort by media to keep, say, victims' names out of the media, especially in the early stages of a story. I've been surprised, too, at how well this is done in the internet age. Now you can find such information if you wish, but blogs that try to be responsible don't blast such information. But celebrities can't escape this without significant repression.
That was kind of the point of journalism schools, to enforce ethical standards as a professional responsibility. It shows how worthless j-schools really are.
Oh, and two thumbs up to Prof. Rahe. Great reference.
Re: Blue Flag Media
That would be a reference to the dramatist Ben Jonson, not Dr. Samuel Johnson. Though I agree that a reference to either is a nice scholarly touch, and that Paul's point is as always a good one.
Mar '11
Re: Blue Flag Media
The last thing we need is some accrediting body to put some good journalism stamp of approval on certain media outlets and deny its blessing to others.
The answer to bad journalism is more journalism. Irresponsible or poorly informed reporters, editors and publishers will always be with us. But thanks to the Internet and sites like Ricochet you no longer have to own a television network or buy ink by the barrel to get heard.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask Dan Rather.