The other night, I went over to Migg’s place to watch CNN cover the Ohio and Texas primaries. As I was watching CNN, I noticed that many of the commentators and analysts were sitting in from of open laptops. During the course of the evening, the commentators would refer to (and even read from) different politically-oriented blogs. Some of the blogs were established political rags, but other blogs belonged to voters in Ohio and Texas who wrote about their voting/caucusing experiences. It was a very interesting broadcast. One minute you had commentary from senior political analysts like James Carville, the next minute you had Roland S. Martin reading from his frat brother’s blog. It was very endearing and refreshing to hear real reporting from normal people instead of the canned politico crap that we get from the usual cast of talking heads.
I hate to be Mr. Obvious here, but the Internet has revolutionized the way information is collected and distributed. There is a new world of ideas and opinions only a few key strokes away. I don’t need to go to CNN for my daily news, I can go to DailyKOS or Indymedia. Bloggers are the primary force in the decentralization of the news media and I am happy to do my small part in this epic battle.
As happy as I was to see some fellow bloggers get some love on CNN, I was equally pissed when I read an article on the LA Weekly a few days later. I read an article called “For Some Reviewers, the Party’s the Thing,” by Steven Mikulan. I am generally not a theater-head, but this article intrigued me because it had an illustration of a pig in a suit and old school press hat totally wolfing down some cheese and grapes. The other dressed up oinker was painted downing some bubbly like Gloria Ferrer and Veuve Clicquot were going out of business.
The basic premise of Mikulan’s article is that many theater critics only review a play if there is a reception afterwards. In other words, it is a journalisitic quid pro quo: “I will show up to your opening night and review your play if you feed me.” This dynamic is even more appalling when Mikulan suggests that reviews are dependent on how well the critic is wined and dined at the reception. If the reception serves string cheese and 2-Buck Chuck, the critic will poop on your play. If you serve gourmet tri-tip sandwiches and Dom P, expect a glowing review and a sell-out run. Either way, good or bad, the production gets some much needed press. Not inviting the critic to the reception is a gamble since they might not even show up to review the play.
What interests me most about Mikulan’s article is how he dances around the issues of accountability and journalistic ethics. In the entire article he only uses the word “ethical” once and never uses the word “integrity.” Mikulan tip-toes around the issue by saying that he does not attend post-play receptions and that the LA Times specifically prohibits its reviewers from attending such functions. He does say that there are “second-tier” or “B-level” critics who are often the worst offenders. This strain of “critic” is guilty of many crimes like exchanging reception invites for reviews/positive press, stealing food, and getting completely obliterated off of the complimentary drinks. Mikulan describes these junior varsity critics as,
“reviewers for a vast, unincorporated territory of neighborhood broadsheets, ethnic tabloids, ad-for-review papers, student newspapers, public-access TV and radio programs, vanity zines, theater Web sites, and blogger-critics.”
After reading Mikulan’s article, I was pretty upset at the notion that someone would trade their credibility as a critic for some free food and drink. Do not get it twisted, I am not that naïve where I think that all journalists abide by a rigid ethical code. Examples abound of journalists using their influence in exchange for money and power. While I do not agree with it, I understand the temptation of a rouge journalist writing a story because someone is going to leave you a suitcase full of money. However, I do not understand some two-bit blogger selling his/her credibility for some raw baby carrots, a stale croissant sandwich, and a glass of headache-inducing bargain wine.
I almost committed the same sin as these theater bloggers. The other night I had the pleasure of going to the Stones Throw Records release party for their new DVD "In Living The True Gods." The party started with a viewing of the DVD and finished with DJ sets from Egon and Peanut Butter Wolf.
These cats threw a live ass party! Once inside, I got a nice poster of the DVD cover which will probably go up in my living room soon. As if the poster wasn’t cool enough, they also had an open bar provided by 10 Cane Rum. Vitamin Water was there in full effect with their full line of products. Vitamin Water and 10 Cane is the new grown-man “faderade” for the 2K8. The viewing was off the hook, Egon and PB killed it, and I got a nice solid buzz. Oh, I forgot to mention that this was all FREE!!!
A day or two after reading the Mikulan article, I was getting ready to write a review about the DVD viewing. I started writing down some ideas and making a rough outline, then it hit me. I thought to myself, “Vic, you can’t write this article. How could you be impartial?” My gut reaction was right. Stones Throw just showed my sorry ass a good time and now I am expected to critically and impartially review their product? Did I enjoy the free drinks, or the editing of the DVD? Could I really critique the music videos that made it onto the DVD when I was too busy stuffing my face with free kettle corn? No, I could not.
We make it a big point to talk about journalistic ethics as applied to major media outlets like CNN or the New York Times, but what about bloggers? Are we supposed to abide by the same ethical guidelines as journalists? Are we journalists? Does it even matter?
With our ever increasing reliance on the blogosphere, this question will be ever more important.
Discuss!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment