Diary of a Webdiarist - Margo Kingston

In a refreshingly personal piece, Kingston talks about the ethics, politics and decisions that frame her webdiary. In spaces such as this, the internet serves as an effective medium for the reader and the mass media to communicate. It is an open space with "no censorship, no boundaries" where people can openly air their views and comment on other people's opinions. Yet, as raised by the article, several issues come into consideration precisely because of the anonymity, boundary-free zones of internet and the ethics involved in publishing it into existence.

Being used to internet chatting software, i must admit that i found no problem with anonymity and using a nickname for all posting purposes. It was my 'online identity' However, in the case of more serious discussions, that may pose a problem. Nobody can take an individual with a nickname such as 'rainman' seriously. Yet, as Kingston brings to our attention, "journalists quote anonymous sources all the time". Whether it is to protect the identity of the individual or to warp our perception of events, the media makes the executive decision on the editorial of the article. It is definitely not ethical to present an article whose original meaning is different from the old, but does it cross the boundary when the sources contributing to the article are anonymous? In the article, it is mentioned that "Knowing how to use power responsibly is the essence of ethics" I thought that it was probably the most well written line in the whole article. The editor has a responsibility to present at least an unbiased factual account of events for the reader to make up his mind, not make up the mind of the reader for him. Web-ethics therefore actually refers to the professional ethics of the editor/ moderator. A slight transgression of this can be found in which the moderators of the site allows similar discussions on the leaders and politics of Australia with people using pseudonyms.(kingston,166) With this kind of anonymity, i would think that the public would be more inclined to 'let loose' with their posting.(Kingston,162)

Another aspect of the internet as a bridging medium is the 'doorless' feature where everything is accessible to anyone with the correct URL, and anyone can do and say anything they want. And the best part is that the individual can choose to metaphorically run back into his home and slam the door whenever he want by disconnecting from the internet and never responding to the same nickname again. Ethics here therefore not only lie on the onus of the moderator, but it takes two to clap. As Kingston repeatedly mentions, trust is feature of her website. Ethics is about fair play. Can the media then be considered ethical on that grounds considering that they shy away from making a channel of communication between the reader and themselves, which leaves the reader feeling powerless?(kingston,163)Do they have something to hide? Kingston further enforces the notion of a borderless community when she says that she says that she is not worried about the requirement of the code of ethics on the offensive material as "it is a deliberate choice [for the user] to log on". The user can choose not to log on, and when he/she does, that choice becomes their responsibility.

Kingston appears to have done a fairly good job with the ethical issue of keeping a webdiary. Coupled with David Davis, she has not only drafted a list of obligations to her readers, but also a list of ethics that she expects her readers to follow. This is more than the average journalist's effort to engage in fair play.