Food Blogging

Not too long ago, a couple of food bloggers proposed the Food Blogging Code of Ethics. I thought the project was ill-conceived. Now, eGullet is putting forward their own code for food bloggers. I don't think this one is any better.

Ultimately, my objection to these efforts is that it is an attempt by a third-party to define standards of behavior for an individual via a code. The fact that it will serve as a tremendous PR boost to those third-parties raises concerns about their sincerity. I'm not a moral relativist in any traditional sense: I do think there are universal moral truths. I do not, however, think that these universal truths are the sort of thing that can be codified. So far, the attempts have not even shown any sophisticated thinking about morality.

The part that really worries me is that once you sign on to either code, they can change it... and it is your responsibility to opt out if you no longer agree with it. This strikes me as an ethically-problematic model.

Still, the very existence of these efforts create a sort of pressure to sign on to them. Who doesn't want to be known as an ethical blogger? Sign up with us, and you'll have a little badge to prove it!

Screw that.

Here's an alternative:

Make your own statement of ethics. This can be as simple as, "I promise to be conscientious, honest, and considerate in my posting. If you have concerns, contact me and I will address them." Alternatively, it can be complicated, discussing how you will treat disclosures of freebies, reviews, commenting, intellectual property, and the like. Create a badge if you want that states "ethical food blogger" or "read my ethics statement" or whatever. Have that badge link to the statement on your own site. This is honest and it gives you control over your own ethics statement.

If there is interest, I'd be happy to put up a variety of draft language (I have both a law degree and a Masters degree in philosophy with a focus in moral theory) and some sample badges. I don't want people to link to these things, but I would be happy to serve as a resource for bloggers (food bloggers or otherwise) who want to create their own ethics statements.

Today, the bloggers at Food Woolf and Spicy Salty Sweet launched a site hosting what they have declared to be the food blog code of ethics.

A number of things about this rub me the wrong way.

First, this was apparently a closed project between two individuals. They created a code of conduct and published it, asking other food bloggers to sign on. Many will. This will, undoubtedly, result in a higher visibility for these two bloggers. (I realize that this very post is contributing to that marginally.) Is this a scheme for such exposure? I don't know. Maybe they mean well. Maybe they are honestly concerned with the ethics of food blogging and responsible journalism. If so, though, why didn't they try to recruit others at the ground level? Doing so would have been the responsible and up-front thing. It also would have made their code stronger.

Second, the code itself is flawed. It has some parts that have nothing to do with ethics. For instance, it includes the statement, "We will not plagiarize or use images from others." Plagiarizing is clearly problematic morally, but equating it with using "images from others" is irresponsible. There are many places where it is appropriate to use images from others: you can get their permission, you can license them, you can purchase them, you can hire someone to take them for you. This isn't even including fair use. Yes, they probably meant "illegally using images from others," but that isn't what they said. In an open project, someone would have caught that.

Third, the code is created in such a way that it can't be opened or turned into an evolving document. They could start over with another code, but this one doesn't have a version number. They are creating a list of people who agree to abide by it. Changing the code will invalidate that list. This was sloppy.

This isn't to say that the majority of the code's content is bad. It isn't. Most of it is common sense: don't plagiarize, factcheck, cite your sources, disclose biases and potential conflicts of interest... on the other hand, most of this is common sense. I don't think we need it. People, however, will likely grab the little badge so that they can claim they follow it and pat themselves on the back (and get a link on the blogroll).

• Things Made Out of Bacon

  Yes. I know. Bacon is the food of the gods and the coolest thing on the Internet. Everyone loves bacon. Do we really need to see another hat/handbag/bra/bicycle/skyscraper made out of bacon? Do we really need another post about the bacon-wrapped chocolate-covered baconburger that someone came up with while scheming about what could get them 10,000 diggs?

  Apparently.

• Alice Waters vs. the Obamas

  Alice Waters is a leader in the local/seasonal food movement. Apparently, people think that this means she should get to decide what the president of the United States eats. She made a recommendation about the White House chef. She criticized the Obamas for not planting beets in their garden and decided that it was wrong that Barack Obama doesn't like beets. Apparently, most food bloggers think this is news. I don't understand why.

• Stupid Products

  There are a bunch of these things, but even mentioning them legitimizes them and makes the problem worse. ...but I suppose I need an example. To me, the worst of these was probably Christian salt. I'm not going to link to it.

  People probably buy these things because of the press that blogs give them. That's just not right.

• Awful Commercials

  Funny commercials are one thing. I can get behind funny. Exploitative and offensive commercials (Carl Jr's/Hardees, I'm looking at you) are another matter. Criticize the practice, yes, but don't re-post them. Posting them is just free advertising.

• Swine Flu

  I don't mind people posting about precautionary measures as a public service announcement. That's all good... but (despite what Israel seems to think) the swine flu has almost nothing to do with food. It gets its name from the genetic origin of the virus. You don't catch it from eating pork.

Yes, I realize the inherent irony of this post.