As journalistic ethics seem to be in rather short supply over at The Port Side and now that they've responded on their blog, I thought I might let them know that it is a customary, ethical practice for a source to see the person he talked to mentioned in a contribution line if the author's name isn't in the byline. This lets the source know if the person he is talking to is credible and gives him an easier time if legal recourse is necessary to respond to the story if is libelous. It's standard practice when a new source is introduced, as it was in her piece.
Given that Andrew wrote the email to me, I was rightly expecting he wouldn't be a part of the story in addition. He was.
Bluebond wrote the email to me, did he not? That's part of the reporting process, unless Michelle wrote it initially and then why didn't she contact me? I guess she's not that serious about dialogue on campus.
As for fact-checking, he wrote a factually inaccurate article about Sarah Palin. I called him on it. That's keeping people honest.
9 comments:
And what would be the SOURCE for your rules about sources?
Is there a reason you disabled comments on your portside thread? Is it because they completely ripped some of your arguments apart on the portside blog article, such as how the CC DOES at least sometimes host stuff that doesn't make it to the CI? Or did you disable comments for another reason?
Not to mention the irony of not allowing comment on your response to the PS article about dialogue.
Kahn's response to your response acknowledges that you have at least once responded to the Port Side in regards to factual accuracies/inaccuracies. But that is hardly true of all of your challenges to the Port Side's work, though you seem to suggest it is. So Kahn is accurate in saying "SOME of what Johnson refers to as 'fact-checking' consists merely of challenging Bluebond’s arguments from a conservative perspective."
And, building on LaShawniQua's observation, what about the irony of accusing a vast left-wing conspiracy of seeking to make you and the CI indistinguishable at the expense of the rest of the staff in a blog post titled "Fact-Checking Andrew Bluebond's The Port Side."
Not to mention that your argument about the Portside not covering campus issues is false...
just looking down the Portside's blog page, I see pretty much every blog post has a campus connection
Is this why you posted the stupid LTA post? To push this down the page?
I wrote the LTA post last night.
Let's face it, Charles. Kahn's response ravaged your argument, and this lame excuse for a rebuttal just shows how good of a job she did at addressing your criticisms.
Post a Comment