s a citizen-journalist, and blogger who writes about education technology, it’s my responsibility to NOT keep my mouth shut when questionable practices are put in place. Two recent examples highlighted the need for this, and certainly, Sharing is THE Threat by Mark Pesce video highlights the change in culture. But, these two are not the only example. Does anyone remember when Bloglines.com instituted an image wall that was inappropriate for K-12 educators who happen to use their service? This ended in Bloglines changing their approach. In fact, many educators–including myself–switched to the new Google Reader service.

As Mark Pescie observes, in my honest and human act of sharing, any of the pretensions to control, the limitations, or power are revealed as completely collapsed and impotent. It’s important that education bloggers learn this lesson and then disintermediate their own organizations as much as possible. It may be our role is not so much to transform teaching and learning through the strategic application of technology, but to disintermediate monolithic organizations that serve themselves rather than those who must work and study within them.

1) PODCASTING POLICY
A large organization’s regulation of podcasting was one example; it showed that their practice was out of alignment with their espoused values, and since they do not blog, their reasoning was opaque. Full disclosure was desirable. It is important that we assert that questionning the truth, trying to find out what is truly reflective of what has been said, is something to be desired, something that will “set us free” rather than hold us back.

“A good journalist?” I challenge that assertion that bloggers should fear blogging their questions, calling for action. The benefit of blogs–over traditional media composed of good journalists–is that corrections can be posted immediately, whether as an update to the original blog entry or as a comment on the blog post. I’ve seen it countless times, and have done so–certainly in the case of the blog post.

Self-censorship for fear that we might offend is the enemy of every blogger. Bloggers seem to suffer it early on in their blogging. Since when did asking questions, shining a spotlight, requiring full disclosure for journalists become…offensive?

Blogging about the situation IS what bloggers do…the same goes for others and the lack of full disclosure–even if there was nothing to disclose, it must be said–regarding the vendor at a recent “unconference” event.

I am reminded of a recent quote, that I’m going to translate into English, although you can read it originally here:

A journalist is someone who offers useful, relevant information that helps others freely make decisions in our society.

Would edubloggers attend an event that sought to commercialize their conversations? I believe the answer would be an emphatic NO! However, how would they make this determination without prior discussion and full disclosure? Isn’t it the responsibility of bloggers to explore this issue, rather than play the traditional submissive teacher role–you know, say as little as possible, don’t rock the boat, but complain in the teachers’ lounge–so that we [society] get a better appreciation of what’s REALLY happening?

And, if an event that appeared commercialized for lack of disclosure is found to NOT be commercial as a result of the discussion, doesn’t that blogged conversation make the point? Should we, as bloggers/citizen-journalists, expect society to allow which conversations we’re permitted to have, and which we are not?

This gentleman put it in a much better way:

We [citizen-journalists] serve as watch dogs over mainstream media, institutional, corporate, and governmental voices of authority. We hold those authorities (and each other) accountable for their opinions, checking and double checking the facts from our multiple perspectives. We contribute unique, innovative ideas to the larger conversation. It’s democracy in action, and it’s a good system. And it’s precisely *because* I’m not a credentialed authority, media journalist or industry expert that my voice has value.
(Source: http://tinyurl.com/5hyy64)

2) COMMERCIALIZING A “LEARNING 2.0” EVENT
Let’s consider these critiques in another way. Here is a scenario for consideration, that applies to many burgeoning writers and speakers.

You are an increasingly famous as a keynote speaker, author of a well-read blog and workshop facilitator. Your prominence and compensation as a paid speaker are rising. You are scheduling workshops and may want to keep your options open with the potential educator organizations as well as other large companies that may hire you. Would you be likely to moderate the tone, the substance of your questions to ensure you don’t ruffle feathers? In other words, keep it a “positive” conversation and limit some topics unapproachable, except to support the position of the establishment?

Also, what if a company or individual you were in a financial partnership with–say, managing or coordinating paid workshops on your behalf–were to be challenged and tough questions asked. Would you feel the need to defend against criticism?

The answer is a matter for full disclosure. Unless readers know exactly what your affiliations are with the big companies, or individuals, how can they trust your transparency? Yes, conversation is important…but let’s not forget that we’re human beings, and blogging allows us a form of expression–and full disclosure–that wouldn’t be found in a highly mediated call. After all, if you can pick up the phone and speak to the folks responsible, doesn’t that set one aside as a person who should disclose their relationship? What did that person do that merits such easy access of the top?

Again, there are better writers than I who could express this better. It is not my intent to offend and I offer apologies if I have done so.

Yet, we increasingly live in a transparent virtual world. Shouldn’t we hold truth more precious than political correctness?

---

---

Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org

---

Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.