Technology A is used in the industry your Web sites cover, but to a much-lesser extent than the more widely accepted technology B. There is a small but passionate following for A, but many people assume it can't get the job done. One of your top editors commissions an A vs. B article and decides to follow it with a counterpoint article.

The first, written by a practitioner in your industry, is pro A, pointing out that it can do what B can do if used correctly. The counterpoint article, pro B, is written by a blogger who rants against A, having just tried it. Concerned but on a deadline, the editor labels the second article “commentary,” pushing it as an opinion piece. The article becomes widely read by A fans outside of your industry, provoking a flame war by bloggers and driving traffic on your site to stunning levels.

The reaction generally points out inaccuracies in the counterpoint article, most related to the author's ignorance of A. What ethical issues does this situation bring up, what reaction might be called for on your part, and what might have been done differently in the editing process?


Note: this scenario, based on real-life experiences, was developed for the 2007 ASBPE Editorial Conference. Visit www.asbpe.org/about/code.htm to read about the group's Code of Ethics.

Shame on the editor, first of all, for using a blogger for this assignment. If there were inaccuracies in his/her article, then obviously he/she did not have adequate knowledge of the topic (why is that not surprising for a blogger?). And shouldn't the first article (A) also be labeled "Commentary?" If there were inaccuracies in the B article, then they should be corrected, but otherwise, welcome the Web traffic and the unexpected publicity.