My friend * Christopher G. "pudge" Nandor makes a point of his credentials (from BIOLA) as a journalist. I have a question of journalistic ethics, and perhaps CGN or others might care to comment.
Assume a hypothetical situation: at work, on the work blog, a blogger notes their journalistic qualifications. Let's say in the past, the blogger (a self-proclaimed journalist) has volunteered at a home for unwed ("single") mothers or teenage mothers, helping them through those difficult months before or after they might choose to have an abortion, helping them "bear" that lovely child.
Then, let's further assume that in the same state that the blogger resides and volunteers, a law comes up that really, really riles up that blogger. It is about anti-abortion "clinics" and maybe even volunteer organizations that are happy to be seen as "clinics" having to watch their step, and not mislead.
Now, I would think a journalist could rightly point out the pros and cons of such legislation.
But should the journalist blogger disclose their (private or public) actions in this area, that might be interpreted as being biased about the issue itself? (so that the reader of the blog need not spend inordinate amounts of time investigating the blogger)
I think, yes. I think it would be a violation of journalistic ethics, or at least give the appearance of a violation, to not point out evidence that a reasonable person would want to evaluate to discern the true leanings, and the possible prevarications, biases, and possibility of lying, of the journalist blogger. Just as legislation might be used to hold various sneaky, underhanded, biased, lying by omission, sneaky, organizations to a "truth" standard (so as not to mislead "the public"), I think journalist bloggers should be held to a certain level of truth and full disclosure that is and appears to be ethical.
But your opinion may vary- and I would love to know why.
* in the interest of fill disclosure, I note that pudge is on my friends list, and I am on his foe list, last I noticed....