I’ve done a bit more thinking and reading about the issue of current and future academics who blog. My conclusion is that, especially given the concern that what I write today may have an impact on my future job prospects, it’s necessary to periodically reevaluate and assert what this exercise is all about.
- Discourse of ideas: Daniel Drezner, for example, says “When I started blogging, I feared that it would prove a distraction from my scholarly research. What I did not anticipate was that it would actually trigger new research avenues.” I have found this to be true. Not being around the Journalism department very much means that there aren’t that many opportunities to talk about these issues, much less think/write them out and receive feedback from others. Since this blog is primarily academic, I hope that it serves this function and stays within the bounds of what would be an acceptable academic debate (theory, research, or otherwise).
- Technology and Mass Communication: The combination of my interest in Internet technology, and the fact that blogging is becoming a greater factor in the Journalism word leads me to think that working on this type of publication would be a bonus. Knowing how blogs work technically, as well as understanding the culture (something I’m only beginning to do), I believe, will make me a more well-rounded researcher and educator.
- Anonymous?: As the story of the L.A. Times blogger shows, blogging anonymously can come back to haunt you if you are outed. I would rather have everyone know about my (admittedly very open) intellectual style than risk problems down the road.
- Intellectual diary: There are honestly a lot of news stories which I find interesting in regards to my academic interests which I don’t want to loose track of (and being able to add my current thoughts and organize with tags is even better).
With all of that said, I realize that there needs to be some focus to my work here. Except when I’m simply posting to remember a story, or working on hashing out an idea, I’ll try to keep things either theoretically or empirically grounded (meaning, as little politics as possible). It simply is the intellectually honest thing to do, even if one is thinking out loud.
Efforts to revise our telecommunications policy are really taking off in moves beyond the net neutrality debate. Here are a few new additions:
- Banning MP3 Streaming: Efforts to require DRM on streaming media may make streaming in non-protected formats a violation of the law (thus locking in the grossly incompatible proprietary formats).
- Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping: Enforcing log retention timeframes on ISPs to help law enforcement track illegal Internet activity.
These are both good examples of how our policy is coming to revolve around control: both by the government and by the communications industry. A good legislative history of these efforts might be an interesting project as it could show if these actions are being driven by need, by impulse to legislate, or by industry requests. These difficult issues have such great public impact, and yet one must wonder how the public can have an impact on the debate.
I attended a session last night about the comparative ethics of blogging and mainstream journalism. The session centered around a recent article about a L.A. Times columnist who was caught pseudonymously making politically charged comments on a blog.
The talk centered around the question of whether or not this action was ok. Many of the bloggers on the panel (and students in the room) appeared to believe that there was no ethical conflict for the columnist, since he was doing this on his own time and made an extra effort to distance himself from his employer.
What I took away from the session (admittedly confirming some of my previous beliefs) was the increasing importance of the editor in our new mass communication landscape. Institutional mass communicators like newspapers and television stations have processes, people, and the persona of the institution in place as ethical guards. Many bloggers, on the other hand, have only themselves to answer to. In this way, it seems to me that while blogging may technically be mass communication, this lack of additional blocks makes their actions more like that of an individual speaker (note that even the panelists who reviewed submissions/blogrolls did little of this editing, with a few exceptions).
Should this mean that bloggers should be held to a lower ethical standard? If so, should this be extended to legal standards? Is it then the readers’ responsibility to make these distinctions? How can mass communicators and bloggers possibly manage these expectations?
The story about the young novelist caught accidentally plagiarizing from one of her favorite authors calls to mind a thought I’ve had recently about the role of copying in learning.
It seems to me that imitation is a crucial part of the learning process. Examples: Babies learn to talk by mimicking their parents’ vocal sounds. Garage bands learn and perform covers to figure out what it takes to write a good song. Someone making their first film may borrow cinematographic elements from favorite directors. College kids quote extensively when writing papers until they get a better grasp on the material.
In each case, copying is playing a crucial role in the learning process. I’m not aware of any existing theories of learning by imitation, but would be greatly surprised if something similar was not already out there (perhaps in psychology or education).
What is alarming about this case is that the institutional processes of publication did not catch this earlier. While authors create, it is a publisher’s job as editor to know the field and separate the good from the bad. This case appears to only involve plagiarism, thus not really a legal, but it illustrates some of the core theoretical issues in copyright nonetheless.
My University has recently changed their wireless system so that all users sign in to an access point which is building-specific. I’ve often thought that this might offer an excellent opportunity to share information about what’s going on in a particular location, or on campus as a whole. Perhaps some kind of events or news board for a building might have the power to bring people together in a way that a traditional bulletin board might not. By creating an online space which is tied to a physical place, individuals may have more opportunities to get to know others.
The same may be true for municipal WiFi projects. If communities can utilize easy-to-use online tools which are integrated with a physical location, people might find an interest in events, volunteer opportunities, or other civic actions that they may not have otherwise.
