The Wardman Wire

John Naughton in the Observer yesterday wrote about how it is possible for reputations (Obama’s) to be damaged, even by people slinging hypothetical mud around.

The article is about the process from “unfounded allegation” to “quiet question to the candidate” to “no smoke without fire“. That progression can be punctured by scepticism and analysis.

This article itself has an “interesting” headline:

How the net’s political dirt corrupts mainstream media

When I read the mainstream media, I see enough exaggerated headlines (my current favourite offenders are the Time Online and the BBC Website) to make me wonder whether blogs are necessary if that is all we do.

Anyway, a snippet of John Naughton’s article. Contrary to the headline, he makes it clear that blogs and newspapers need to operate by the same standards.

The thicket of ethical questions raised by the new ecosystem engulfs us all. For example, should a responsible newspaper - or blog - provide a link to a dubious online source? The case for not doing so is that providing a link implicitly raises the status of the offending site. But in a world where Google will find virtually anything in an instant, such high-minded abstinence becomes an empty gesture.

As it happens, there is a way out of the morass, but it requires the application of old-fashioned journalistic skills and values. Or, more prosaically, sceptical, investigative reporting. The fact that something is circulating on the net is not, in itself, news - any more than is the fact that microbes circulate in drinking water. You can find anything you want on the net, and I mean anything. So what?

It is worth reading the full article.