Yesterday, Dave Winer posted a piece titled "Is It Marketing or Journalism?" I read the piece with a great deal of interest because there are so many ways that this question has shown up in the mainstream media as well as in weblogs. A few examples:
Examples could go on. After the DaveNet email had been out a few hours it was obvious that people were not using the article as a source of debating the same things I thought we needed to discuss. Those "critical" of the piece were unhappy with Dave's example. Maybe that very specific example was Dave's lone point. I don't think so, but maybe it was.
The bottom line for me came when Dave said this, "This is the difference between a director of marketing and a professional journalist. The former accomodates the employer, and the latter must not." It strikes me that part of this is about "loyalty." To whom are we loyal? Once you disagree with "the play called in the huddle," what do you do?
Editors (and journalists) make decisions all the time about how to say things, what to say, when to say them and when to keep quiet. Their integrity isn't impuned each time they avoid the most outrageous or controversial choice. Avoid often enough and, yes, their integrity as journalists gets called into question.
I don't think Gillmor was wrong to keep quiet about his employer's decision. I think the Air Force Colonel bordered on treason with public criticism of the Commander In Chief. I think every news source had a decision to make about the Daniel Pearl video, and those who chose to leave it out didn't harm their reporting of "the story." Those who left it out there rightfully deserve questions about their motives, their sense of responsiblity to the family, etc.
But, I may have missed the whole point! It's good stuff, Dave.
