An appearance-based code?

As a person who hates rules, I loved this:

Right now, Gordon and I blog under an unspoken code of human beings, which I'm sure is broader than the journalistic code of ethics. I would hate for us to aim lower in our standards.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

I often speak of my own low standards, and I am not about to adopt a "code" which might interfere with my ability to speak freely. I try to post what I think, when I think it, and I try to be fair and logical. I don't know what else I can really do.

I've often thought of blogging as analogous to ebay in the sense that if you get known for being unreliable, people won't buy from you. Beyond reputation, there's no enforceable code, nor could there or should there be one.

I'm glad to see that the meme of "Blogospheric Rumblings" about a code of ethics has been discredited.

First, voluntary codes. Next it'll be about gateways to the Internet.

Here's Jeff Jarvis:

For bloggers, just like journalists and their institutions, our key asset is trust. Break that trust and you may never repair it. That, again, is the essence of journalistic and blogging ethics.
Seriously, the code we need is the internal code -- the one we live by and the one each of us already has. Each blogger has a different idea of what that is, but the extent to which he lives up to it (and acknowledges when he falls short), that's what I call integrity. It is inherently self enforcing, because it is enforced by one's self.

In any event, I can think of few things less practical and less achievable than a code of ethics for bloggers, and beyond what I've said, I'm just not going to take the idea of an external ethics code seriously.

But on the bright side, there is something we can take seriously right now. For some time, bloggers have been criticized for various physical attributes as well as their physical appearance. They have been repeatedly slammed for being too white and too male -- something I think is really cruel because none of the bloggers who suffer from these disabling accidents of birth can do anything at all to change them. (Well, OK, I know sex change surgery is available. But is it really fair to ask bloggers to submit to going under the knife? Simply in the name of outreach?)

What I think we need to take seriously is not an ethics code, but a dress code!

I realize that I just stated my unalterable opposition to blog regulation -- especially a code of blog ethics -- but this is entirely different. One reason I oppose an ethics code is because it would necessarily be a form of blog regulation. But dress codes are far less restrictive, as they don't regulate blogs, but only what bloggers wear. Why should we sit back and allow bloggers to be freely criticized for wearing pajamas, and (most recently) for being poorly dressed, when there's something that can be done about it?

Far be it from me to dictate what bloggers should wear, but the neat thing about dress codes is that they're very easily enforced. Throwing another blogger convention? Simply hire a big beefy doorman from, say, one of New York's posh nightclubs, give him a copy of the official Blogger Dress Code, and it's done. To avoid claims that we're discriminating against impoverished bloggers who can't afford new outfits or makeovers, there could even be a charity-funded blogger goodwill "free box" or clothing rack right by the front door (in much the same way that nice restaurants keep neckties by the front door). That way, every blogger would be assured of conforming to the code, at least for the duration of the event.

As we all know, appearances these days matter more than ethics, so why not establish an official Blogger Dress Code committee, hire some kickass fashion consultants, and get the blogosphere up to speed? I'd be willing to bet that the leading fashion magazines like GQ would jump at the opportunity. I don't mean this as a snub or criticism of any blogger, but I honestly think that if they really looked, the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy producers could manage to find at least one ill-dressed blogger or two who'd cooperate for a special "Worst Dressed Blogger" episode. Winning contestants could then be put in charge to accessorize their more recalcitrant fellow bloggers. What could be more thrilling than that?

Just think. Never again could bloggers be accused of having no standards!

UPDATE: Donald Sensing has written a superb post on the code of ethics issue.

The whole idea of a code of ethics rests on the presumption that blogging (or journalism) is bound somehow by a public trust. That lawyering and medicine clearly hold a public trust is easy to see. But the notion that news media do is, IMO, a bit of a stretch. The idea that papers (and later broadcast media) are “objective” (or in FoxNews-speak, “fair and balanced”) is only about a hundred years old. It was promulgated by William Randolph Hearst, who was one of the yellowist of yellow journalists in the closing years of the 19th century.
There's a lot more; a must read.

UPDATE (05/19/05): More on "fashionblogging" -- where the satirical morphs with the sartorial.

posted by Eric on 05.09.05 at 08:32 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2303






Comments

Lordy, Lordy, its off to Brooks Brothers to be able to attend the next conference. Maybe if I shop very carefully I may be able to fake it with some Lands End stuff. I can not survive any more strikes... Bad hair, white, slightly overweight... I must be well dressed.

Outstanding post Eric. I have not laughed that hard in a long while. I hope you are not mad at me, ala Dave Winer. I promise I was laughing with you.

Tom   ·  May 9, 2005 09:05 PM

Eric, reading the post again made me think of the conversation we had at the conference. I mentioned that my parents read my site and it provided me a good barometer on what to post and when to post it.

I do not mind horrifying them to a degree, as a son that is my duty! However, I would never embarrass them in public. There is a distinction there, and walking that line has always been interesting.

Tom   ·  May 9, 2005 09:15 PM

I suppose that in one sense I could be considered "lucky" not to have a family. (Of course, I once got worried email from the aunt of another "Eric Scheie" who was worried her sister would find out about her "son."

Eric Scheie   ·  May 10, 2005 07:08 AM

Fair and logical, my ass.

Sorry, but I missed your accusation of bias in the LA Times today.

Funny how you ignore the bias in The Washington Times, Fox News, NBC, etc. and never hold the Right accountable for anything.

Instafaggot   ·  May 10, 2005 08:04 AM

Perhaps a federal agency tasked with monitoring what bloggers wear?

Ooh! Ooh! No, a UN agency!

John   ·  May 10, 2005 10:11 AM

Patience please.

I never said I'd be able to fair enough or logical enough to satisfy each and every "ass."

Eric Scheie   ·  May 10, 2005 10:19 AM

Your next post approvingly quotes the "biased" LA Times. How does that work?

You use it when it supports your POV, but you slander it when it reports something that you don't want to be said.

blogesota   ·  May 10, 2005 11:45 AM

"I never said I'd be able to fair enough or logical enough to satisfy each and every 'ass.'"

In my experience, the desires of the ass are are pretty non-rational--the "fair and logical" rarely, uh, comes into it.

Sean Kinsell   ·  May 11, 2005 11:38 PM

I guess I left out "balance."

:)

Eric Scheie   ·  May 12, 2005 11:17 PM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits