Much worries scribblers in the mainstream press with the rise of the internet, but nothing so much as the phenomenon of the blog. Reporters and columnists in the traditional press have become vocal in their defence of journalistic standards they find increasingly washed out by the growing world of blog “reporters” and “columnists.” Among bloggers they find little or no attention paid to matters of truth and accuracy, let alone balance or truly investigative reporting made possible, they claim, only with the budgets provided by traditional press companies.

The worries are legitimate and real. But it would be wrong to suppose there is a geographical divide between “bloggers” and traditional press “columnists.” Increasingly, those traditional press columnists are posting blogs as well. And here, in their blogs, we find often the same lack of attention to journalistic standards, even though the blogger is, with a different hat, a traditional press columnist. It isn’t the bloggers per se who are destroying standards, but the blog form itself that seems to be the culprit regardless of who is engaged with that form.

The chief difference between a blog and the traditional press is the presence in the traditional publishing process of an editor. Bloggers, whether they are employed otherwise as traditional press columnists or something else completely different, all lack editors, a position no traditional press lacks. It isn’t the traditional press journalists who uphold journalistic standards and it isn’t bloggers who are destroying them, but rather it is the absence of editors in the blogosphere that is destroying journalistic standards no matter who is posting the blogs.

A case in point: libel is among the most serious errors to make in publishing, whether it’s on a blog or in the traditional press. There aren’t many examples of libel in the traditional press but the error occurs with profound regularity among blogs. Because the contents of blogs, whether widely read or not, are recorded by google bots and other search engine devices, and because researchers use google and other search engines most often these days, libel on blogs is an important error to always be vigilant about searching for and addressing quickly before the google bots catch and record it, a process that usually takes three days or so. Consequently, smart people in the public eye set up an email alert system to be informed every time their name appears in the news or on a blog so that they might have a chance to check for libel before it is recorded for all time by search engine bots.

However, if a libel is found, it’s every man for himself in this wild west, and there is little established process for compelling a blogger to remove a libel quickly. The only thing to do at this time, say legal experts, is to write the blog publisher, request the removal of the libel quickly, and provide information if necessary to show them the error.

It doesn’t always work. The form of the blogosphere seems to encourage both non-journalist and professional journalist alike to treat requests for correction as an insulting affront, as though the words, the readers, and the charge of libel are somehow less important in the blogosphere than in the traditional media form. It’s as though anything goes on blogs so long as the sheriffs—the editors—are out of town.

A personal experience illustrates the problem. A blogger, otherwise an established traditional press journalist and author in the British Columbia region by the name of Terry Glavin, recently posted at his blog a libel concerning me. The offending phrase he used was “. . . the resumé-padding Vancouver candidate Kevin Potvin . . .” There is no resumé I have ever “padded” and the charge needed correction in case a potential employer considering a resumé of mine ever came across this reference when googling me. Furthermore, I was certain the writer of the blog, Glavin, had never seen a resumé of mine, padded or otherwise. I wrote him requesting he correct the error. (At the same time, I attached a post-script drawing into question his claim to being an independent journalist in light of the fact that he had placed articles in the Ottawa Citizen using his byline alone despite the fact the articles had been prepared in concert with a now-defunct on-line advocacy group called judeoscope.)

The issue of blog-based libel and the difficulties people face in having them corrected, even when the author of the libel is otherwise a traditional press journalist, is best illustrated by a verbatim reprinting of the entire email exchange that followed. In the end, the libel was never removed from the blog, but the blog appeared with an addendum one week after the first email was sent. It read:

“Since this post appeared, Potvin has been subjecting me to a barrage of annoying and vaguely threatening emails. He began by accusing me of taking money from Jewish groups to "place certain articles in media" (classy guy), and he also alleges that I libeled him by using the term "résumé-padding" here. That was a reference to a Wikipedia entry Potvin wrote about himself a couple years back.

“In that Wikipedia entry, Potvin claimed that his work had appeared in Harpers Magazine and the Atlantic, when in fact he'd only had a letter to the editor published once, in each—a fact he now does not deny (this was also the subject of a Globe and Mail story a couple of years ago that must have been embarrassing for Potvin; the Globe refused Potvin's demands for some sort of retraction).

“Anyway, I call that ‘résumé-padding.’ Potvin says it's libelous to call it that. I will leave it to the millions of people who read this blog to decide.

“But no comments allowed.”

The email exchange, showing my attempts to have the libel removed rapidly before google bots recorded it, and referred to by blogger Glavin above as “annoying and vaguely threatening” to him, occurred as follows:

Potvin:

"...résumé-padding Vancouver candidate Kevin Potvin..."

I request that you substantiate this serious charge or remove it from your blog.

Thank you.

PS. Where are the disclaimers when you accept cash from private third party groups to place certain articles in media where you're already a paid columnist?

Glavin:

Before I respond to your silly request, you will explain this dirty accusation in full detail, and then apologize for it: "Where are the disclaimers when you accept cash from private third party groups to place certain articles in media where you're already a paid columnist?"

Potvin:

You first.

In the meantime, I'll take your note below Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:52 PM, as acknowledgment of receipt of my request to remove a libel from a published source you control and set the clock ticking on that request accordingly.

Thanks

Glavin:

Set whatever clock you like. My response was this:

“Before I respond to your silly request, you will explain this dirty accusation in full detail, and then apologize for it: "Where are the disclaimers when you accept cash from private third party groups to place certain articles in media where you're already a paid columnist?" I will not respond to your request until you explain yourself and apologize.

Note that as sent, too.

Potvin:

Do what you think is in your best interest, Terry.

You've been informed of the damaging libel you continue to publish with conscience [sic] intent. Remove it at once or not, the choice is yours, there's no need to consult me directly on the matter any further.

Glavin:

Okay. I'll go first: Your "resume padding" is a matter of public record. It concerns the rubbish about your work having appeared in the Atlantic and Harpers. The Globe and Mail chose not to retract their account of that. I see no reason why I should. In sharp contrast, the accusation you make about me is a lie, and a filthy libel. Your turn. Explain yourself and apologize.

Potvin:

As for the public record:

see: http://www.republic-news.org/images/atlantic.gif

And http://www.republic-news.org/archive/174-repub/174_briefs.htm

"...But at the Atlantic Monthly web site, one can easily find the essay of mine the magazine published, available in pdf. It appears they do archive letters. A little research by the author, or perhaps a little checking of information by a professional at the Globe and Mail, might have avoided this embarrassing gaff..."

Both of which have been published, on the public record, for two years and easily found. Furthermore, the claims in question were never made in a resume nor is there anything in the public record concerning any resume of mine or the contents therein. If you know of a resume of mine that is "padded" then by all means stand by your published statement. If you don't, then I think you know what you have to do.

I apologize for stating you were actually paid by judeoscope when you worked closely with them to research and produce op eds and articles that appeared in The Ottawa Citizen under your byline alone. However, my statement was in personal correspondence and was not published, and so is not libel.

Libel: “noun: Law: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.”

Your statement, on the other hand, besides being demonstratively false and damaging, is published. As you are no doubt aware, repeating a libel that has been published elsewhere provides no cover. A publisher is responsible for his own statements. Not that your libel repeats one: it is an original libel.

I'm not asking for an apology. Just remove it, please, now that you know it is incorrect.

Glavin:

Are you now denying having claimed that your "work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic"?

Potvin:

You published and continue to publish a statement accusing me of "resume-padding." If you are certain there is a resume of mine that contains padding, you should be fine. If you do not know of a resume of mine that contains padding, you have published a damaging libel. Furthermore, you have acknowledged receipt of my informing you of the libel. So from this point forward, you now demonstrate conscious intent to continue publishing a damaging libel.

Do you what you think is in your best interest, Terry.

Regards.

Glavin:

I'm not going to continue this back and forth charade.

You have made a very serious allegation. I've been trying to determine whether anything I've written could be construed as libelous in any way. In response, you've been evasive and grossly insulting, to the point of suggesting I've been quietly taking Jewish money while presenting myself as an independent journalist.

You didn't answer my question: Are you now denying having claimed that your "work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic"?

Answer it.

Potvin:

Do you what you think is in your best interest, Terry.

You've been informed of the damaging libel you continue to publish with conscience intent. Remove it at once or not, the choice is yours, there's no need to consult me directly on the matter any further.

Glavin:

You need help, Kevin.

There isn't a court in the world that would presume you have a reputation to defend, and this email exchange alone would be sufficient evidence to have any libel case you brought against me (over two words in a blog posting?) tossed out of court. You know why? Because I haven't published any libel, and you haven't informed me about it, and my efforts to determine the basis of your allegation have been met with incoherence ("conscience intent"?) or silence. Still, I'll try one more time: Do you now deny having claimed that your "work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic"?

If you aren't going to answer that question, then there's nothing to discuss.

Potvin:

Terry, I published an 850-word essay in Atlantic in June 1996, and the next month, a 450-word letter in Harpers. These were the first two times I had ever seen my name in print, after trying for quite some years. As these were something more than letters to the editor of a local newspaper, I always thought of them ambiguously as “work,” which for someone trying to break in as an essayist, I honestly considered them to be. The authors of the original piece in the Atlantic to which I responded with my essay, responded in the same issue back to me, in sort of a peer review style common in academic journals, in which it is standard for “letters” to be considered “work,” further persuading me to think of my own as “work.”

At a wikipedia site I established as part of my campaign for civic council in 2005, I mentioned these two pieces of work. A journalist unhappy with me on a whole different matter pitched a story to the Globe and Mail about inaccuracies to be found on the then-new wikipedia. Her article turned out to be far more about me and The Republic newspaper than about wikipedia, and because she didn’t believe me and failed to research adequately to turn up evidence of these appearances in these august magazines, she labeled me a liar, and used my apparent lying as an illustration of wikipedia’s unreliability.

I requested the editor of the section of the Globe in which this appeared to please correct the record. He refused, suggesting that I ought to sue if I felt slighted. I of course have no resources to launch lawsuits, so I corrected the public record as best I could by utilizing my own publication to set the record straight.

However, while many people read the Globe and Mail, not nearly so many read The Republic. And so I have found over time that the suggestion that I lied in my wikipedia entry appearing in many published sources where I come up as a subject. I have tried to contact the publishers and have the text corrected, sometimes with success, sometimes not.

I was alarmed to find, then, that the next time the inaccuracy appeared, in your blog, it had mestasticized into an actual job resumé that had been “padded.” It is conceivable that I may be presenting job resumés to potential employers in the future. Such a potential employer may want to google my name, and there he would find the charge that I pad my resumé. It could cost me a job.

I asked you to correct it, but I added, because I was angry to see this inaccuracy still appearing in published form, a question about your work with judeoscope that was not credited when it appeared as an op ed article in The Ottawa Citizen, which I consider to be bad practice. I apologized for claiming you were paid by judeoscope since it was true that I didn’t know if that was so, and I certainly didn’t publish it, not knowing. And then I showed you a pdf of the actual piece in Atlantic to prove that my claim in wikipedia was not a lie.

I probably can’t sue you, I don’t have the resources, and the attitude anyway around legal circles matches yours: what could just two little words on a blog matter? You’re free to think of me in any way you wish based on whatever else you’re heard of me or read of mine, but to the person attached to those two words in that little blog of yours, there is real and unjust damage done.

I never insulted you beyond the claim of being paid, which I apologized for and corrected right away, when you said you weren’t paid. (I know that judeoscope, when it operated, had been in the habit of paying for co-research that leads to articles). You on the other hand called me silly and some other names and charged that I didn’t have a reputation that could be damaged. But if it is just two words on a blog, as you say, I don’t know why it is so hard for you to remove them. I don’t agree with much of what you have to say on international matters, but I had always considered you a writer with integrity and honesty. There was never before any mention of a resumé in any other source, nor was there ever before mention of any padding of a resumé. You had completely fabricated that phrase in your blog. I even proved to you that the source of your suspicion—originally a suspected false entry at wikipedia fabricated by a Globe and Mail writer—was plainly wrong. Yet you have refused to remove the charge from publication.

It’s not becoming of a writer of your stature to see you so caught up in something that you would allow yourself to be fairly characterized in print as someone who makes up lies about other writers and publishes them. I would prefer for both of us that the inaccuracy be simply removed and we

go about our separate ways without any further word about it. That would seem the better alternative for both of us, don’t you think?

Glavin:

There. You see? That wasn't difficult, was it?

All that High Noon drama, for nothing. A civil request in a pleasant tone would have got you a long way with me, but you had to go and accuse me of being in the pay of the Jews. Nice one. Really classy.

And even now, you persist in claiming that I have done "work with judeoscope that was not credited when it appeared as an op ed article in The Ottawa Citizen." That, too, is bullshit. As it happens, a very fine and principled progressive journalist used to run Judeoscope (it's certainly news to me, and would probably be news to him, that he ever paid anyone for "co-research" that resulted in articles anywhere). He and I shared similar very specific research interests, during a very specific period of time, and so he and I had occasion to share some notes on a matter we were both chasing down. There was nothing that required me to credit him for anything I wrote, and nothing that required him to credit me, but I do remember crediting him in some way, as a courtesy, nonetheless, somewhere. Which is probably where you got the brilliant idea to carry on about Jew Gold, like Cartman in South Park.

Here's what I consider "resume-padding": You claimed that your work has appeared in the Atlantic and in Harpers, when the only "work" of yours that appeared in either magazine was, in each case, a letter to the editor. You can't just dress up something like that and then cry foul when someone notices it's got liptstick and high heels on. Your "work" was letters to the editor. "Resume-padding" is actually a kind way of putting it. It doesn't accuse you of lying. It doesn't accuse you of falsifying your employment history in some old-fashioned job resume that you filled out for a posted position with some company. It means you engaged in a bit of resume padding, and if you hadn't tried to pretend it was otherwise in the first place, you probably wouldn't be having conniptions as you try to pretend so even now.

I'm going to amend the post, though. Don't quite know how. But first, this sounds to me like another of your childish threats: "It's not becoming of a writer of your stature to see you so caught up in something that you would allow yourself to be fairly characterized in print as someone who makes up lies about other writers and publishes them."

Explain that, by, say, noon on Monday. Then I'll figure out how to amend the big-deal post on my blog (which only a few hundred people will ever read, and of whom only a minority would ever have noticed those two offending

words in the first place).

Potvin:

Terry, You use words as stock in trade and so you know they have specific meanings.

"Resumé padding" means "resume padding" and a resume is a quasi-legal document for which one may face charges of fraud and may be fired for cause if it is falsified. An even (arguably) embellished wikipedia entry (which I still don't think I am guilty of, but whatever) is not "resume padding," which has a specific meaning. Stating that I padded a resumé is to state that I have committed a fraud. This is why it matters to me, and I don't think you would consider it High Noon drama if you reacted vehemently if you found someone publishing incorrect statements about you being a fraud.

As you know from your own research, it doesn't matter if a blog isn't looked at by anyone. It can still turn up on a simple google search anyone might conduct upon anyone else. For example, I turned up a reference thanking you for working closely with judeoscope to produce articles that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen under your byline alone, and that reference was probably seen by less than a hundred people. (And by the way, I never used the term "Jews" or "Jew Gold" or "Jewish money" in reference to this, nor would I, since I don't know money to have religious affiliation, and it doesn't matter to me if judeoscope was a Jewish organization or an organization of shoe makers, I just happen to have a policy at my paper that I copy from the New York Times that insists that articles prepared in conjunction with an organization say so at the top or bottom of the article as a matter of principle and integrity).

As the words "resumé" and "padding" have specific meanings, and put together amount to legally-defined fraud, and as you have no knowledge of my ever "padding" a "resumé" but rather made up the fact (I am quite sure, for example, that you have never seen any resumé of mine period nor have ever encountered any published reference to any resumé of mine), it is a lie, plain and simple, to say that I padded a resumé, and it is, plain and simple, a libel to publish that statement.

Mistakes can be made, lord knows, but refusing to remove the mistake once you were informed of it makes you a liar. Sure, it's a small matter, it's not like you published a book all based on a lie. But from my point of view, it's no small matter, and I can't honestly look at you any other way but as a liar so long as that statement remains in place.

I didn't publish anything about you, let alone publish anything negative about you, not to mention a lie about you. I would have had no reason to write you in the first place if you hadn't commented about me in your blog utilizing a lie. The onus is not on me to correct a wrong. The onus is, or rather was, on you. I gave you ample information and time to remove the lie, and the deadline passed at noon earlier today and I find it still there.

The damage is done. You libeled me and damaged my interests and failed to correct things when you had ample chance to.

Perhaps if you hadn't begun your note with a patronizing "There. You see? That wasn't difficult, was it?" comment, I'd be inclined to forgive and forget even despite all the other insults. I know that when I've wronged someone, it isn't a good idea to patronize them afterward. You could have used some diplomacy lessons, things would have gone better.

As they are now, you're probably better off not writing me anything else and just removing the two offending words and hope for the best.

An apology would be a nice touch, but it's not necessary. I know the kind of person you are now.

Glavin:

No reasonable person would accept your self-serving distillation of the term "resume padding," and no judge would be convinced, either. A resume is not just some "quasi-legal document." It is an account of one's accomplishments.

But that doesn't matter, any more than it matters that even now, you persist in accusing me of writing articles "prepared in conjunction with an organization," when I did no such thing, and you know I did no such thing. Not even close. This is also plainly and demonstrably untrue: "I gave you ample information and time to remove the lie, and the deadline passed at noon earlier today and I find it still there." Until your previous email, despite my repeated requests, you were refusing to explain what the hell you were talking about by claiming that I had libeled you.

But, like I said, it doesn't matter, because as I also said, I'm going to amend the blog post anyway, but you will first explain this: "It's not becoming of a writer of your stature to see you so caught up in something that you would allow yourself to be fairly characterized in print as someone who makes up lies about other writers and publishes them."

It doesn't make any sense.

This time, rather than engage me in these ridiculous back-and-forth exchanges, just explain yourself and save us both the bother.

Potvin:

Terry, It's now three whole days since I first requested that you substantiate or remove the charge from your publication. I supplied you with sufficient information that you acknowledge receiving. And yet the lie remains published at the site you control.

I already tried to tell you, you were taking too long. It's out of my hands now.

PS: Please don't write me anymore. I know all I wish to know about the kind of person and the kind of writer you are.

*****

Three days later, Glavin had attached the note, as above, to his blog, but had still failed to remove the libel. The petulant tone of Glavin’s emails, and the “vague threats” he imagined he read in my emails, not to mention the strange reference to religious insults he also seems to be imagining, are not directly a product of the author—we know Glavin is otherwise a reputable journalist—but are, I think, a product of the blogosphere itself. An editor might have red-lined the offending “resumé-padding” phrase and checked it out, and deleted it before publishing it. And an editor, informed of a potential libel, would have removed the phrase at least while it was under discussion, before the truth, either way, was learned, just to be safe. It seems the lawless—that is, the editor-less—attitude of the blogosphere is capable of infecting even mainstream traditional press journalists. It’s a bad sign, and it’s something that should worry those journalists all the more.