the ethical critic.

Cameron Woodhead recently published an article which caught my attention on the Sydney Morning Herald website. The reason it caught my attention was because he wrote about many of the issues which accompany blogging which I have considered before.

Let's face it; everyone loves being a critic. There is something exceptionally satisfying in critiquing another person's hard work, making sure they know that YOU think that it could be improved in one way or another. When you're a journalist working in print media, there are most certainly ethics which you must abide by, it's simply common courtesy. However, when you're a blogger it's a completely different story. A code of ethics becomes personal, the blogger can decide when to draw the line and for many, that can be much too far along. In the article I found it humorous to read that the author himself had been critiqued after commenting on critics who blog. After attending a panel discussion regarding theatre criticism, he was asked whether amateur critics whom are consistently blogging their thoughts, were a good or bad thing for criticism. He decided that it was both good and bad, and went on to discuss his thoughts. However, his quotes then went on to be manipulated and his thoughts were completely misrepresented in an article written by a fellow panel member, which in turn, lead to his opinion of blogging critics being, well, critiqued.

The thing I loved most about this article was the way Woodhead discussed the ethics of a print critic - 'The best newspaper criticism works in a tradition that recognises its authority flows from its obligations'. Print journalism is restricted under a code of ethics, and although that code may be stretched sometimes, it is nowhere near the freedom which bloggers have. The blogging critics can be dramatic and over the top, pushing their point across and no-one can deny that it generally makes for entertaining reading.

It really does all come down to personal morals and responsibility. Whilst bloggers might think they're just writing an entertaining opinion piece which will hopefully gain more followers, they must also remember that there are always consequences to anything you publish, and if you're not prepared for the backlash, I advise you don't write it in the first place. Just because you don't have the ethical restrictions a print journalist has, certainly doesn't mean you should push them. As Woodhead says; ''What they [print media & the internet] should not do is race to the bottom, defaming critics and journalists who operate in one medium or the other, discarding critical thinking and the ethical dimensions of public discussion along the way.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/theatre/if-youre-a-critic-on-the-internet-everyone-can-hear-you-scream-20100923-15ocn.html