Gross Speaks (A Little). And the Perils of the Blogosphere
First and foremost, here's an interview that Channel 7's just-departed meteorologist Todd Gross did with Max Preston of Boston TV News. There's not much new here and Gross seems very guarded.
But one of the responses to the earlier Media Log entry "7 Mostly Mum on Gross" raises a serious ethical issue. One anonymous poster stated - as a fact -- that Gross had some poor work habits and then repeated a vague but disparaging rumor about him. That made me a bit queasy. In theory, the mystery poster could be an insider with real knowledge of Gross and valuable information. But he could also be someone with no legitimate info who is just out to pile on and bash.
If I were writing a story about Gross and had spoken to the source making the accusations, I'd a) have to use my judgment about the source's credibility and motives and b) then convince my editors to go along with such an anonymous attack on Gross. But here in the blogosphere, it's just unvetted information that may actually be on the money or just plain mean-sprited. There's no way of knowing. And there's no easy solution.
I'm certainly not going to put a prohibition on anonymous posts and I want to keep the flow of new and accurate information going. That's what a blog is for, and I've already gotten some crucial tips here. But here's a suggestion. If someone is going to offer information - purporting to be fact rather than opinion -- about someone or some subject, it'd be nice for that poster to describe, without revealing his or her identity, how they would come by such knowledge. In this case, the poster could have written "I once worked with Todd Gross" or "I have friends at WHDH" or something along those lines. I realize this is miles from foolproof and people can simply make up stuff. But for now, I can't think of anything better.
P.S. -- For the record, I ended up deleting the anonymous post about Gross under the standard that if we wouldn't publish something as a letter to the editor, we won't accept it as a post.
But one of the responses to the earlier Media Log entry "7 Mostly Mum on Gross" raises a serious ethical issue. One anonymous poster stated - as a fact -- that Gross had some poor work habits and then repeated a vague but disparaging rumor about him. That made me a bit queasy. In theory, the mystery poster could be an insider with real knowledge of Gross and valuable information. But he could also be someone with no legitimate info who is just out to pile on and bash.
If I were writing a story about Gross and had spoken to the source making the accusations, I'd a) have to use my judgment about the source's credibility and motives and b) then convince my editors to go along with such an anonymous attack on Gross. But here in the blogosphere, it's just unvetted information that may actually be on the money or just plain mean-sprited. There's no way of knowing. And there's no easy solution.
I'm certainly not going to put a prohibition on anonymous posts and I want to keep the flow of new and accurate information going. That's what a blog is for, and I've already gotten some crucial tips here. But here's a suggestion. If someone is going to offer information - purporting to be fact rather than opinion -- about someone or some subject, it'd be nice for that poster to describe, without revealing his or her identity, how they would come by such knowledge. In this case, the poster could have written "I once worked with Todd Gross" or "I have friends at WHDH" or something along those lines. I realize this is miles from foolproof and people can simply make up stuff. But for now, I can't think of anything better.
P.S. -- For the record, I ended up deleting the anonymous post about Gross under the standard that if we wouldn't publish something as a letter to the editor, we won't accept it as a post.
5 Comments:
"But one of the responses to the earlier Media Log entry "7 Mostly Mum on Gross" raises a serious ethical issue. One anonymous poster stated - as a fact -- that Gross had some poor work habits and then repeated a vague but disparaging rumor about him. That made me a bit queasy."
And yet you (as author and editor of this blog) choose to let this anonymous slander stand instead of removing it as a responsible editor should.
That makes YOU responsible for the comment.
Damn right it should make you queasy.
You're right Steve. I deleted the post.
O.K. I work with Todd and if you ask most everyone who does, they would tell you that it was NOT slander(I didn't write that one by the way). You don't get fired under contract unless there is substantial cause(s). Work habits and too much negative personal life at work are grounds for dismissal just about everywhere. It is an insult to all of the rest of us at 7 to not admit some of this. Otherwise it just looks like some nitwit manager just didn't like Todd's forecast. He is an excellent forecaster. But you just can work with all of that other stuff. Todd knows it and it probably wasn't a surprise to him at all.
Todd Gross talks to viewers at a level that isn't so dumbed down as the others, and includes astronomical details, good information that's clear, enlightening!
Notice that the whdh-tv boston channel 7 weather graphics have richer color, for example richer blues... than boston channels 4, 5, 25, 38, 56. Regardless on what manufacturers' television set you happen to catch the weather.
Along with every other post for the last four days. Evidently, the "Letters to the Editor" standard is a challenging one...
Post a Comment
<< Home