Journalists and Bloggers: An Ongoing Debate

I received an email from Simone Favaro, whom I thank, regarding a comment on my post about the fact that the Internet is increasingly showingunverified news. The author of the email said he was unable to comment on my post because the comments were closed. I checked what he stated, but I found this part of the site absolutely usable, after registration (due to spam problems). Simone Favaro commented on my post on his blog. Below is my reply.

In summary: Anna Bruno revisits the issue of the publishing law, supporting it because she believes it is needed to guarantee the quality of information, which is threatened by a proliferation of blogs that hide behind an authority they do not actually have.

That is absolutely not what I said. I quote verbatim the point from my post: “The idea of blogs, of personal diaries, is a democratic one. Fully respecting the right to information and to free speech, each of us expresses our own opinion. Readers are well aware that they are receiving the writer’s thoughts and, above all, the opinions of those who animate the blog“. In short, yes to blogs as expressions of personal thought, no to blogs as sources of information.

It’s a fairly common stance among journalists (not all, fortunately), but I consider it at least superficial and certainly lacking in an understanding of the social media phenomenon.

This is a personal opinion and it is appropriate if expressed on one’s own blog so that readers recognize it as a personal opinion and not as a source of information. This statement is serious if written in a journalistic outlet because it is not supported by facts or evidence.

Those who ‘live’ the phenomenon of blogs and social media from the inside know that it is ‘reputation’ that makes a source authoritative; and a blogger’s reputation is built because someone else recognizes their expertise: the greater the reputation of those who recognize it, the greater the reputation of the blogger; and, furthermore, when a blogger risks their reputation, they are automatically ‘disqualified.’

I don’t want to rely too much on Google to pull out articles about how the authority of a blog or any site is built. I like to quote a post from a blog that focuses on the importance of BL (Back links) for increasing a site’sreputation, a topic that has recently seen the proliferation of link exchanges and purchases, and how Google has had to take countermeasures.

The same can’t be said of a journalist who works purely by virtue of having an authorization recognized by an association formed by their own colleagues and, as everyone knows, “dog doesn’t eat dog.” This is even more evident from the fact that online outlets generally never allow comments on news articles.

In this statement I find many inaccuracies. I do not work for an authorization (no journalist works for an authorization), but because, after passing a State exam, I was granted the professional journalist card. For the record, I was examined by judges and journalists and the head of the commission was (and always is) a judge. The outlet I run, moreover, FullPress.it allows comments on news articles, which, however, neither qualifies nor disqualifies a publication but is simply the result of an editorial choice. Also, Il Giornale allows article comments, just to cite an example of an authoritative print publication also present online.

Another point I don’t agree with is comparing the journalistic profession to that of a doctor, architect, etc. Granted that there are no first-class and second-class professions and that I believe all professional associations are anachronistic and should be abolished (I discuss this in part elsewhere), journalism is actually one of those professions that should not have a professional association. The presence of an association that wants to regulate information goes against the much-vaunted plurality of information and also exposes to a type of control that is not always exercised for “guarantee” purposes (let’s remember that the journalists’ order was established by Mussolini).

Once again, there is confusion. The professional association of journalists was established with Law 69 of 1963. As far as I know, fascism did not last that long and was not present in Italy in the 1960s. Maybe you’re confusing it with the press law, which was revised and superseded by the law on publishing.

Finally, it’s absolutely not true that a journalist—even if registered with the association—keeps their personal opinion separate from their professional one. On the contrary, no one can guarantee it. The mere choice of words in an article or the choice of images in a report comes from the free judgment of the author, who decides what, in their opinion, deserves more emphasis. Thus, even if facts are “true,” sources certified, and the piece countersigned by an editor-in-chief, the news as a product will always be subject to the perspective of the messenger. Just as it is when conveyed by a blogger, who, however, does not have someone to sign off and must personally take responsibility for what is written.

More inaccuracies. The journalist signs the article and is responsible for it. There is no countersignature because it wouldn’t make sense, since the editor-in-chief, who is at risk of committing a criminal offense, is always required to oversee but not to manipulate or guarantee what the journalist has written. It is clear that those who write report facts (especially if they are reporters) and not their opinion. However, this is absolutely subjective even though, as an informer, one is always subject to rights and duties, as well as the professional code of ethics. These responses of mine, supported by factual data, are examples of how information must always be verified.