I think it's too easy for journalists to compromise their integrity if they don't guard themselves against slugging in the cyber-streets with the outspoken factions of the online community. Sharing too freely also inevitably compromises (real or perceived) credibility — i.e. others' perception of a reporter's ability to impart information with an even and balanced hand. Doesn't it?
At any rate. My readers over "there" know what my profession is, although my name is in no way associated with the blog (and it's going to remain that way until I am comfortable making a complete and permanent move over here).
After a particularly engaging discussion in my comments section with an outspoken health care reform opponent this week, I received accolades from other bloggers I hadn't realized were reading my posts — much less the comments on them.
I have to share this, because it makes me happy. A private message from one of my more critical readers:
You did a very nice job defending your position on Universal Health care against ************s opposing views.
More often than not, I find her argument style to be too casually dismissive without backing up her position with any discernible specific details. She also has a habit of bringing up the words "The Constitution" as if the words alone support her argument over her opponents without "bothering" to name any details on how it supports her case.
Bravo to you for actually bringing the challenge to her by citing specific references of the Constitution and the founding fathers that would support Federal involvement in health care. Debating with someone where you are the only one doing the heavy lifting of citing references and supporting links can be tedious, time consuming, and require patience, but the fruit is showing your argument to be the stronger one. While it may not have swayed ************'s position on the matter, those who read the exchange will hopefully be led out of the darkness of misinformation and deceptive/biased talking heads and their MSM focal point.
Your non-biased sensible point of view is refreshing, and you give honor to your profession with that mindset/attitude. =)
I've had discussions with her, and found the task to be quite trying with her sporting a condescending attitude even when proven factually wrong in nearly all the points she was trying to make- and she usually starts arguing against alternate points which I never made....as I see she was attempting to do with you. That's one of the reasons why I liked reading your exchange- you kept the discussion on track and didn't let it veer off.
I'm continually shocked by some articles that people attempt to pass as professional journalism. I see so much biased/straw-man reporting that it depresses me at times as to where the future of journalism is headed, as it seems that the masses can be more easily sucked in by the pretty lie than the uncomfortable truth.
Seeing reporters like yourself gives me hope that the future in news need not be as bleak as I sometimes think.
G
I am sharing this not because I wish to gloat about those kind words directed at me, but because the feedback encourages me that I may not necessarily have to be so guarded in public places. And I want to start opening this blog up more for authentic discussion and learning; not despite the possibility of compromising me and my fellow journalists, but because I want to help reinstate the public's trust in professional journalism and those who commit it.
Posts
