In another post I mentioned that I have been traveling around the country, meeting with a wide range of organizations who have some interest in blogging and citizen journalism. These folks are very interested to work with bloggers but are not comfortable with throwing open their doors to any knucklehead with a web site.
At the same time, I have been working with our volunteer attorneys on various legal defense issues including handling member "cases" and responding to hundreds of additional inquiries. As complaints against bloggers grow it has become clear that recruiting more and more volunteer attorneys is not a viable long-term solution; what we needed is a way to reduce the liklihood that bloggers will be sued in the first place.
I dreamed up all sorts of elaborate schemes to create "legal shields" for bloggers but they were all dismissed by our lawyers as unworkable and ineffective. After much discussion it became apparent that there is no silver bullet. What I learned is that the best possible "defense" for bloggers was a combination of education, a clear editorial/corrections policy and an easy way for potential plaintiffs to contact bloggers.
First, we needed to offer members a short survey course on "legal issues for bloggers" (we've partnered with the Poynter Institute on this and the course is currently in development). Second, we needed to draft a boilerplate editorial/corrections policy that could be adopted by MBA members and linked from their site. Third, we need to provide a neutral outlet when a dispute arises between a blogger and a reader/potential plaintiff.
To accomplish the last two items we will be creating an MBA Editorial/Arbitration Committee which will provide both the member blogger and the reader/potential plaintiff an outlet for any disputes that arise. I wanted to make this "binding" but our attorney tell me that won't work and I already know bloggers are not going to do anything that creates even the appearance of ceding editorial control of their blog to someone else. So the Ed/Arb Committee will be limited to making recommendations only; the real benefit is it allows for a "cooling off" period. This committee will be extremely useful because in my experience over the past two year about 90% of the legal threats arise out of frustration on the part of readers/complaintants that their concerns are not getting a fair hearing.
Even better would be if members could avoid legal/ethical pitfalls before hand. Towards that end we have been working on offering legal and ethical advisory services.
If you looked at the "value chain" document you can see how this thinking informed the creation of that document.
The conservations on my travels and the need to provide the best possible protections for blogger speech dovetail nicely. By requiring referrals for member candidates, thoroughly vetting member candidates, requiring members to agree to abide by MBA policies and support the MBA mission, by providing education and training and making available ethical and legal advisory services and taking other steps to minimize the liklihood of an MBA member getting sued we also happen to be creating a "differentiated" group of bloggers who share a "seriousness of purpose" that is appealing to the organizations I have been talking with over the past year.
These organizations are willing to open their doors and offer MBA member some tremendously exciting opportunities - credentialing for high profile court cases, review copies of books or movie DVDs, access to virtual press conference with newsmakers, and many more - if "we" (meaning "me") are willing to "vouch" for MBA members. The ideas described above become the basis for such "vouchsafing".
At the same time there is an important culture among bloggers which values independence and likewise a tradition within journalism to resist attempts to "license" journalists. We need to avoid going down that path. What we really need is to strike the right balance between the interests of our member bloggers and these organizations to create opportunities for our members and advance citizen journalism without sacrificing integrity.
After consulting with many MBA members and other thought-leaders in the citizen journalism and journalism space I came to the conclusion that the best solution is to create a two-track system within the MBA.
The first track is what we have now with one addition. Member candidates would go through the membership application vetting process, agree to abide by MBA policies and otherwise be supportive of the MBA and its mission, the same as do know. All members would be required to take a 30 minute web-based training "class" on issues like defamation, fair use, privacy, and DMCA Take Down Notices so we will kno for sure that our members know the basics - that at least they know the right questions to ask and so can best avail themselves of our legal and ethical advisory services.
The second track would be members could be "certified" meaning they have taken certain steps to "qualify" themselves in the eyes of our various institutional partners (adopting an editorial policy, clearly displaying their contact information on their blog, demonstrating a solid understanding of relevant legal and journalism issues (either through their academic/professional background or by completing additional training courses offered by the MBA), and otherwise meet standards required by our institutional partners.
The idea is that while we do not require any extraordinary steps on the part of members who do not wish to participate in these "extras" we also create a level playing field so that ANY member can take advantage of whatever opportunities we can create.
