Do bloggers need a "kitemark" to gain their readers' trust?
Standards and boundaries could be helpful.
By Steven Baxter Published 03 August 2012 10:02
Would a blogging kitemark give readers more trust in what they're reading?
That's just one suggestion that bloggers - and the journalists' union, the NUJ - have been looking at. It's a kind of "kitemark" that could sit on blogs and websites to show that the author or authors was bearing a set of principles in mind - fairness, honesty, accuracy and so on - when writing their articles.
It's a subject that I discussed along with other bloggers in my adopted home city of Bristol at the weekend, including the authors of some European media blogs you may not have heard of. (How many of you knew, for example, that there's such a thing as Bildblog, tearing the work of Germany's biggest tabloid to shreds, or that it's a massively popular site? Or that other media blogging sites, from Observatoires des Medias to Zurpolitik, and Corrigo are looking at the same sort of work?)
Despite there being some problems with a "kitemark" scheme, I can see there being quite a lot of advantages.
We bloggers already have layers of scrutiny. Those of us who write for publications like the New Statesman, for example, have to be mindful that our output falls (or fell) under the remit of the soon-to-be-deceased-and-reborn-as-something-completely-different Press Complaints Commission, even though our words will never make it into the "press".
In the comments section, friendly and unfriendly people who are dead set against everything we've just written, from the placement of commas to the entire premise of our blogposts, will turn up. Why, after what can sometimes be a mauling, would you really be keen to open ourselves up to a more serious form of complaint?
For amateur bloggers, there is the danger of turning what can be an unhealthy obsession at its most benign into a full-time unpaid job. It's fine if you've got time to spend justifying every cough and spit, but not all of us do.
That said, I think this would be a way of representing an aspiration to ethical writing, a legitimacy for blogging, a set of principles to work towards.
What those principles are is a possible sticking point. Take "fairness" for example. One of the things I have always loved about blog-style writing is the way in which you often abandon all pretence of neutrality, the lofty journalistic conceit that you can somehow detach yourself from the events you are hearing and seeing, and which are affecting you directly.
With the kind of blogwriting I like to read (and occasionally write), you very much put your personality, your character and your prejudices into the story, right up front for everyone to be aware of; I find it more honest than imagining you can be some kind of camera taking a neutral picture of the facts around you. Some blogging is unfair, and should be unfair.
It's a good idea to try and imagine there are some standards, some boundaries, some decent principles to abide by when taking to the keyboard. We all have different definitions, maybe, of what they are. But perhaps this idea is something we can get behind.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















6 comments
Surely anyone can claim to be honest, fair and accurate...and it is open for those who disapprove of a blogger's particular opinion or stance to label them "dishonest, inaccurate and unfair". Who decides? In the wrong hands and with too much power, this type of thing ends up surely becoming some sort of an outdated and potentially dangerous registration system, and possibly even in the hands of censors who disapprove of the content and views of those they are labelling, and so using such a system to crush dissent. Then at some point we are down to "licenses" to blog and criminal penalties for "operating an unlicensed blog". If you think this is unlikely or fanciful, this is a kind of typical pattern adopted by all who wish to regulate journalism. They are always looking for the useful fools. There is enough censorship and self censorship already, and the hit button and content credibility is the key - not whether a blogger has offended some sensibility or vested interest that is usually left alone and found himself denied a "kitemark".
...so we'd know that blogs with a kite mark have the integrity on a par with print journalism? How about a brown skid mark instead?
Oh yeah...and how many bloggers featured on the NS would get one?
Laurie Penny who's constructed a specious worldview from fantasy, invention, wishful thinking and a seeming desire to present herself as a downtrodden serf; when, in objective terms, she's a hyper-privileged citizen of a society that in global terms is obscenely decadent?
Mehdi Hasan? Who can hardly walk down the bloody street for all the racist and anti-Muslim abuse he suffers...abuse forged by white supremacist angst at post-colonial humiliation?
Get real. What most bloggers need is to get out more and try looking at the world without their 'victim goggles'. A kite mark is the most stupid, impractical and all round condescending thing I've ever heard. It's born of a conceit that most people lack the judgement and common sense required to spot BS when they read it. This is far from the case; most people detect a lot more BS than most bloggers would prefer.
Here's a for instance. You say: "It's a subject that I discussed along with other bloggers in my adopted home city of Bristol at the weekend..."
So when 'you' discussed it, was anybody else remotely interested or supportive or did they basically ignore it and treat you like a sanctimonious, elitist, censorious moron?
You have some very serious issues. Also I have a video clip of you making "hot and sweet loving" with a giraffe.
Ah! The stepladder of love.
Hits are the best kitemark. Such quasi-official approval smacks of elitism and restraint of trade.