OnPoint: You don't need double-talk – you need Bob Loblaw!
58 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
self-regulatory body might need to be established for internet media
*Huge* can of worms. The Internet is global you know. My blogs (like most peoples) are hosted in the US (actually, I'm not sure that LJ hasn't moved its hosting to Russia).
Would there be a global body. Whose standards would it use - China's? Or would we have a Great Firewall Of New Zealand to block non-compliant media?
(Although, I suppose one option would be that if one joined a regulatory body and complied with their rulings, you'd get immunity from libel writs).
-
(actually, I'm not sure that LJ hasn't moved its hosting to Russia).
Ha, in Soviet Russia, blog hosts you. Which would certainly simplify things.
As someone still hanging on to their Listener subscription by the skin of their last straw, (as yet nobody rips the Black page off my copy), I've found this whole discussion really useful.
-
WH,
I've found this whole discussion really useful.
If it wasn't for Russell's suggestion that there is more to this than meets the eye, I would have assumed from what was said that someone had made allegations they couldn't substantiate and was forced to apologise when someone called bullsh*t.
I have a cousin with a degree in irony studies.
-
"I have a cousin with a degree in irony studies."
What would your cousin make of Simon Barnett hosting "Stars in your eyes", still promoting all of the best Hits. <clap of the hands, onto the knee & a kick - da daa>
-
*Huge* can of worms. The Internet is global you know. My blogs (like most peoples) are hosted in the US (actually, I'm not sure that LJ hasn't moved its hosting to Russia).
Oops. I should have been waaaay more specific. I was thinking in a New Zealand context, it might be practical/possible to subscribe to a code of blogging ethics of some kind - the Press Council's code might work, for example. I don't mean a draconian regulatory framework dished out by the Powers that Be like the Great Firewall - I mean a voluntary scheme, where interested parties can sign up and say "here's our code of ethics." A bit of a badge of honour thing. If something like this ever happened, it would probably be only "serious" commentators who'd bother with it. Where the blog is physically hosted probably wouldn't come into it. Legally, of course, it might, but as far as a self-regulatory code goes it's moot.
-
WH,
What would your cousin make of Simon Barnett hosting "Stars in your eyes", still promoting all of the best Hits
If I had to hazard a guess, I think he would claim to have never heard of it but secretly watch it religiously. I'm a fan of David Hasselhoff so people don't tend to ask my opinion about this sort of thing.
-
I mean a voluntary scheme, where interested parties can sign up and say "here's our code of ethics."
There are several such codes out there. A google search for "bloggers code of ethics" will point you to umpteen.
-
If it wasn't for Russell's suggestion that there is more to this than meets the eye, I would have assumed from what was said that someone had made allegations they couldn't substantiate and was forced to apologise when someone called bullsh*t.
I have professional links on both sides of the dispute and I really don't feel able to comment in detail; not least because there are already heavy letters flying around. But the dictated apology was run not on merit, but because one side has considerably deeper pockets than the other. Let's just say I think things have been poorly handled.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.