The Hutton inquiry in the UK is proving to be as much a test of journalism as it is of government. Perhaps the weblog model has something to offer here?
Polly Toynbee, in the Guardian, points out the hypocrisy of the outcry over inaccurate journalism:
“which of us would escape a walloping if asked to open our notebook scribbles to the searchlight of prosecution interrogation, every word examined for absolute clarity and veracity?”
Now that an army of bloggers – writers of journals, so de facto – journalists, have no sub editor, editor or proprietor to answer to (let alone check that they are keeping short-hand notes in spiral bound notepads), are we going to drown in a sea of spurious allegations and downright lies? I would argue that we are less likely to than when respectable news came from those nice gentlemen at The Times.
There are two ways to go about controlling any business: license it or create a marketplace. With weblogging we are seeing a journalistic marketplace evolve, the virtual currency, the whuffie, of links creates a self regulating popularity index which governs reach. In turn, a medium has emerged which allows individuals without Hearst’s bank balance, to exercise free speech to reach a potential audience of millions.
Everyone can be a publisher and everyone can publish lies, but not everyone will. The more people that write online, the more likely it is that lies and inaccuracy will disappear as background noise and that the truth will emerge. This happens not because there are no editors – but because anyone can comment or publish a counter argument – everyone is an editor and lies require effort to corroborate. Professional Journalism won