Injustice of an ethical code
Over regulation has ruined this country, for none other reason it suggests that people are unable to regulate themselves. It’s like asking your self “Why should I put in the effort if someone is going to do it for me?” Clearly, this is something that the founding fathers passionately believed in. We went to war for our independence based on the notion that a free and democratic government is going to serve the people better then thousands of decrees handed down by a single authority. Our own Constitution is a limiting document, be that I mean it limits the scope and jurisdiction our governing institutions have over citizens. Why then have we developed into a tyranny that must regulate everything? We are at an interesting crossroads because what are starting to see the affects of a generation raised in this era of over regulation. People need to be left either to sink or swim on their own, life circumstance shouldn’t matter. Life is dealing with the hand you were dealt and pushing forward, not waiting for some else to come along and tell you how it is done. The blogosphere is no different, if people have and idea and want to affect change then they should have the self awareness to take the steps to guarantee they are taken seriously.
Bloggers although notorious for acting on the fringes of the “news” reporting world should not be without common sense. One of the virtues of blogging is that readers don’t have to take your word for granted as a publisher and commentator you have the ability to link and provide concrete evidence to support what you’re saying. If people want to get read and want to make a change than they should not be falsifying information because with as many eyes as there are on the web inaccuracies are short lived and most certainly black balled from mainstream blogging outlets. What this tells me is that a formal set of regulation is not only unwarranted but useless.
Secondly, how are people who clearly don’t like the idea of being part of a formal institution suppose to agree on a set of governing principles? In other words where is this new code of ethics going to come from? A third party imposing such a code seems ridiculous because it is a distinct possibility that participants will be completely void of any knowledge pertaining to blogs and the norms it follows. Furthermore, it seems equally as frustrating trying to get bloggers to come up with a uniform code because not all bloggers have the same goals. For example say one blogger suggests that every post must have the name of author. Well if that author is reporting on gas prices in the Midwest that fine, but what about the political idealist commenting on his tyrannical dictator. The latter can of course be thrown in jail or executed for such comments. Without and somewhat consistent set of goals any kind of ethical code would be impossible to impose.
Although my reasons may seem rudimentary I feel they speak to the reality of the situation. In theory an ethical code should not be needed because the institution itself does facilitate a need for one. People, I hope, are smart enough to look at what they are reading through a critical eye and be able to judge for themselves what may or may not be a legitimate argument. If deem so than he or she has a responsibility to make others aware of the falsity being portrayed. Additionally, it is just not a feasible venture. It like trying to unionize bike messengers in San Francisco, your just speaking to the wrong individuals, they are free spirits who live by different standards. By taking away a bloggers uniqueness you’re not just hurting the person but the medium as a whole. People need to learn to take responsibility for and not rely some heavily on others doing their work.
