Truth vs. Speed vs. Accuracy
This morning I read an article pertaining to the growing phenomenon of blogs unpublishing incorrect information. Steve Myers, a member of the Poynter Staff, discusses the plight of inert information being thrust upon trusting readers, and the ramifications that coexist with it.
Myers strongly believes that in the online world, transparency is the new objectivity and the best way to keep your readers coming back to your blog is to be upfront and honest in your quest for the truth.
Nick O'Neill, blogger and founder of the site being discussed acknowledges that publishing information has value, even if time reveals that the story was incorrect. This is because the only true measure of a blog’s value is the amount of traffic through the site. The more traffic your blog gets the higher it will be ranked by Google, and the easier it is to sell ad space. O’Neill’s logic is sound in his quote, “I honestly think that publishing information reveals the truth quicker, as it creates an opportunity for others to come forward with more information,” However, Myers notes that O’Neill is actually creating an uninformed public because while he might eventually uncover the truth, the first people to read his blog are exposed to false information.
This brings up the main question of the article, is it okay to unpublish? Because unpublishing information is ripe with ethical dilemmas involving censorship, I have studies many Philosophers to determine unpublishing’s true merit.
John Stuart Mill, a British Philosopher most recognized for his work in utilitarianism, would agree with O’Neill’s rationale and agrue that while a few people are exposed to incorrect information, the majority of people will be subject to the truth via a process of criticism and exploration.
On the other hand, Walter Lippmann, an American intellectual, writer, reporter, and political commentator who became highly popular for the introduction of the concept of Cold War for the first time in the world, is quite skeptical about citizens capacity for rationalizing the truth. He believes, and I agree, that people are over eager to believe everything they see. These people then take what they see and create a new opinion of the topic in question. So these people who are exposed to false information is very problematic for the general public because that one person has the potential of affecting the opinions of hundreds of others, all based off of falsities
O’Neill understands the driving economic principals of the internet by saying that, “the more content I have, the more traffic I get. So I need to publish as much information as possible,” but never says that that information has to be valid. Statements like this one would anger Robert Maynard Hutchins, an educational philosopher, dean of Yale Law School, who is most famous for his work on the Commission on Freedom of the Press. In his paper, Hutchins argues that in the old model of news, professionals were reluctant to censor each other which created problems for the press’ attempt to construct an informed public. However, today with the explosion of blogging and forums, professional standards are wildly abstract and rarely follow his Social Responsibility Theory of the Press.
His theory explains that a journalist’s first obligation is to the public, not his own blog. But still, the question remains of whether or not to unpublish false information.
According to Hutchins, the first requirement for censorship is the truth, but O’Neill still believes that by publishing something that is not true, it will force to the truth to come out. This being the case, we need to take a collection of values and principals of all the above schools of thought.
In my own journalistic opinion, O’Neill’s logic of getting to the truth satisfies Mill’s principal of utilitarianism but violates Lippmann’s concerns for a truly informed public. And if O’Neill did not remove all the old, or false, information then he would violate Hutchins’ role of censorship. I believe firmly in a journalist’s duty to build an informed public, which means unpublishing when necessary. However, this does create some potential problems once an author begins to make a habit out of this. For starters, the blog might loose its transparency of showing the readers exactly how they came to their conclusions.
The only logical solution is to unpublish the totally incorrect facts and keep the relevant incorrect facts. These relevant facts should be archived and clearly labeled as potentially false and only used as a means to illustrate transparency.
Myers strongly believes that in the online world, transparency is the new objectivity and the best way to keep your readers coming back to your blog is to be upfront and honest in your quest for the truth.
Nick O'Neill, blogger and founder of the site being discussed acknowledges that publishing information has value, even if time reveals that the story was incorrect. This is because the only true measure of a blog’s value is the amount of traffic through the site. The more traffic your blog gets the higher it will be ranked by Google, and the easier it is to sell ad space. O’Neill’s logic is sound in his quote, “I honestly think that publishing information reveals the truth quicker, as it creates an opportunity for others to come forward with more information,” However, Myers notes that O’Neill is actually creating an uninformed public because while he might eventually uncover the truth, the first people to read his blog are exposed to false information.
This brings up the main question of the article, is it okay to unpublish? Because unpublishing information is ripe with ethical dilemmas involving censorship, I have studies many Philosophers to determine unpublishing’s true merit.
John Stuart Mill, a British Philosopher most recognized for his work in utilitarianism, would agree with O’Neill’s rationale and agrue that while a few people are exposed to incorrect information, the majority of people will be subject to the truth via a process of criticism and exploration.
On the other hand, Walter Lippmann, an American intellectual, writer, reporter, and political commentator who became highly popular for the introduction of the concept of Cold War for the first time in the world, is quite skeptical about citizens capacity for rationalizing the truth. He believes, and I agree, that people are over eager to believe everything they see. These people then take what they see and create a new opinion of the topic in question. So these people who are exposed to false information is very problematic for the general public because that one person has the potential of affecting the opinions of hundreds of others, all based off of falsities
O’Neill understands the driving economic principals of the internet by saying that, “the more content I have, the more traffic I get. So I need to publish as much information as possible,” but never says that that information has to be valid. Statements like this one would anger Robert Maynard Hutchins, an educational philosopher, dean of Yale Law School, who is most famous for his work on the Commission on Freedom of the Press. In his paper, Hutchins argues that in the old model of news, professionals were reluctant to censor each other which created problems for the press’ attempt to construct an informed public. However, today with the explosion of blogging and forums, professional standards are wildly abstract and rarely follow his Social Responsibility Theory of the Press.
His theory explains that a journalist’s first obligation is to the public, not his own blog. But still, the question remains of whether or not to unpublish false information.
According to Hutchins, the first requirement for censorship is the truth, but O’Neill still believes that by publishing something that is not true, it will force to the truth to come out. This being the case, we need to take a collection of values and principals of all the above schools of thought.
In my own journalistic opinion, O’Neill’s logic of getting to the truth satisfies Mill’s principal of utilitarianism but violates Lippmann’s concerns for a truly informed public. And if O’Neill did not remove all the old, or false, information then he would violate Hutchins’ role of censorship. I believe firmly in a journalist’s duty to build an informed public, which means unpublishing when necessary. However, this does create some potential problems once an author begins to make a habit out of this. For starters, the blog might loose its transparency of showing the readers exactly how they came to their conclusions.
The only logical solution is to unpublish the totally incorrect facts and keep the relevant incorrect facts. These relevant facts should be archived and clearly labeled as potentially false and only used as a means to illustrate transparency.
Good post, though I think there might be some middle ground. What if the author kept the text "published," but somehow identified it as disproven? Perhaps redacting it visually, using a different text color, or perhaps even using the strike-through style would allow the text to be "withdrawn" in a more transparent way.
ReplyDeleteYour writing is coming along into the proper form. You should capitalize proper nouns like "Internet," but you appear to be getting the hang of the style.
Good use of sources.