Age of Autism: Blog or Newspaper?

AoA's home page Nov. 29, 2009. The page has since been removed.

A number of  comrades have called for a letter-writing campaign to get Age of Autism (AoA) removed from Google News, in part as a reaction to AoA’s recent post (now removed from the site, but viewable here) of a “satirical” photo altered to show a number of pro-vaccine doctors and journalists sitting down to a Thanksgiving feast of roasted baby.

I don’t normally engage in “delisting” campaigns like the one my pals are  calling for, but Kim at Countering Age of Autism brought up a point that I think bears consideration.

Age of Autism can’t decide if it’s a blog or a newspaper.

There is a large gray area between the two, and many blogs try to fulfill  a news reporting role, but ultimately a blog is not held to the same level of journalistic integrity as a newspaper.

AoA bills itself as “The Daily Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic,” and like some other blogs, it has a few of the trappings of a legitimate news site—a masthead-y looking header and a trio of editors with newspaper-like titles.

In his “Letter from the Editor,” Dan Olmstead writes:

“For the most part, the major media in the United States aren’t interested in [our] point of view, they won’t investigate the causes and possible biomedical treatments of autism independently, and they don’t listen to the most important voices – those of the parents. We will do all those things, and more. . . .

“The Age of Autism will be wide-open and transparent in its reporting and commentary on causes and treatments; I am beholden to no individual, organization or fixed point of view. My commitment is to in-depth reporting. I am not a social worker or an autism parent, I’m a journalist drawn to what I called, in my last UPI column, ‘the story of a lifetime.’”

This suggests the editors want Age of Autism to be taken seriously as a source of news and investigative journalism.  If that’s the case, they need to implement meaningful editorial oversight. I’m not an expert, but a few very basic elements of responsible journalism seem conspicuously missing:

• Differentiation between news and editorial or opinion;
• A consistent comments policy, applied  equally to supportive and critical comments;
• Acknowledgment and correction of factual errors.

Moreover, the editors should be held to a higher standard than has been demonstrated thus far.

The Thanksgiving photo was a stunning piece of editorial misjudgment. It was offensive in a number of ways, but without the element of biting commentary or elucidation of uncomfortable truth that can make the offensive a useful part of public discourse. It was simply a schoolyard taunt aimed at people the editors dislike.

It got an unusual (to this observer) amount of negative commentary from readers, and was pulled from the AoA site on or around Dec. 4, without any acknowledgment from the editors.

Even the most astute editors make mistakes now and then. They misjudge the value or impact of a piece, allow slipshod fact-checking, or even allow a story with gaping holes to run. But when the error is so egregious that a piece is pulled after publication, an editor owes his or her readers an explanation and apology.

What does Age of Autism give readers? A big Bronx cheer in the form of a blank page.

In the comments that accompanied the piece, managing editor Kim Stagliano made a crude sexual joke about some subjects of the photo. Despite the AoA comments moderation policy prohibiting “abusive, off-topic… excessive foul language… sexist or other slurs,” the remark was allowed through, and remained, along with similar comments from a few readers, for a period of time before it was deleted.

Off-color, crude, or  other offensive banter is fine on a blog, in cocktail conversation, or other relatively personal interactions, but it shouldn’t have a place in “the nation’s first daily Web newspaper for the environmental-biomedical community.” And it shouldn’t come from the managing editor of the paper writing in that paper’s public forum.

In response to a comment objecting to the piece, frequent commenter “Adrienne” said:

“AoA is an informational blogsite that discusses, among other things, treatment and recovery. If you’re so happy with status quo of your three children’s autism, what in the world are you doing here?”

So, which is it, AoA? A “daily Web newspaper” with all the responsibility that entails? Or an “informational blogsite,” where anything goes?

Seems like even loyal readers are a little confused.