If traditional journalists are the information sentinels, then bloggers are the militant rebel force. Post-Dispatch contributor Kathleen Parker insists that “bloggers assume anything said is fair game.” Let me go on the record on how I feel about this.
I absorb all sorts of information from people and other sources, some of which may be (highly) confidential. You would not believe the gossip, personal information, and other stuff that is thrown out there on any given day. To a certain extent, I am of the opinion that anything said is fair game; it’s merely a matter of discretion.
Some journalists consider off the record to be the “pact” between sources and the media by which information can be used only if the source’s anonymity is guaranteed. Others feel that information given off the record may not be used at all, that the information is given in strict confidence.
Depending on the nature of the disclosure, I make a judgment: if relayed, can someone’s reputation or self-esteem be at stake? Is it worth repeating anyway? Did the disclosing party give the information in confidence—not necessarily off the record, but with the understanding that I would not go blabbing it around to everyone? (And I hold that confidence.) Even if they did, is the safety of someone or perhaps the individual at risk?
In the case of Eason Jordan, who resigned from his position at CNN to prevent the company “from being unfairly tarnished,” perhaps he was victim of a mob of overzealous bloggers. Like any other media form, I admit, the muckraking is still likely to occur.
However, I hold bloggers in a higher regard because generally speaking, they lack the political agenda—or if not that, the need to suck up to the mainstream—that the media giants are cursed with.