Some conflicting lessons on journalism ethics re: forums, social networks, mailing lists and blogs
December 14th, 2007
A recent discussion on the NUJ New Media mailing list prompted me to jot down some thoughts on the current private-public confusion thrown up by online communication channels. I think some education is required here on both sides.
Lesson 1: It’s public. Whatever you may think about codes of conducts, etc. etc. if you say something on a forum you should be aware that it may be quoted, that it may be indexed by search engines, databases, etc and potentially findable. You cannot rely on people’s good manners. So be careful what you say, or be prepared to stand by what you say.
Lesson 2: It’s private. Journalists got a lot of flak for wandering into blogs and forums after Virginia Tech because they saw it as being ‘in the public domain’ and therefore ethical (Tony Harcup had this view when I spoke to him at the time). But people using those platforms have a different view of what is ‘public domain’. So be courteous and sensitive.
An addendum: legal issues are still to be resolved around much of this. Employers and lecturers who look at people’s social networking profiles could be breaking the law; Facebook ads might be doing the same.
This post is part of a ‘blog carnival’. Read more at CarnivalOfJournalism.com.
Entry Filed under: blogs, ethics, forums, online journalism
12 Comments Add your own
1. links for 2007-12-&hellip | December 14th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
[...] Some conflicting lessons on journalism ethics re: forums, social networks, mailing lists and blogs Â… The dualistic web. Private and public spaces in the same place. (tags: ojb bradshaw ethics) [...]
2. Idetrorce | December 15th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
3. paulbradshaw | December 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
fancy saying anything more about why?
4. alan cameron | December 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Well …. public and private.
If it is on a blog/forum it is by definition ‘out there’, ie public.
Of course we have to be sensitive and courteous at all times, just as we always had to be in the days when print/broadcasting were the only platforms.
But this debate puts me in mind of the times when, as a reporter, I would interview someone, making it perfectly clear that I WAS a reporter and that the subject’s quotes would likely appear in print. Then, when they did, the subject sometimes would complain that “I didn’t know you were going to print that”, etc.
Some people unused to dealing with the press get shocked when they see their own words in a news story. They always have, and I imagine always will.
But surely if it’s published it’s published, irrespective of the platform on which it appears?
5. paulbradshaw | December 18th, 2007 at 9:24 am
The difference is that your approach to publish is public too…
6. Linda | December 18th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
On the point about it being private, this was a fast learning curve for me - when you join a group there may be terms and conditions pointing out what’s said is private. I once had the misfortune to suggest that what was said on a journalism forum could make for an interesting piece and that I would be ‘reporting on issues raised’ - or something like that. This sparked quite a reaction and the forum owner telling me I couldn’t ’scrape’ his list for comments. I’d meant I’d contact people and ask if they would like to elaborate. On another forum, people do openly ask for comments and answers and make it clear that this may be for publication. But I’ve still seen people get arsey when they think they are about to be quoted without their permission. There’s nowt as queer as folk.
7. alan cameron | December 19th, 2007 at 12:13 am
The difference is that your approach to publish is public too…
Sorry Paul, but not sure what you mean…
8. paulbradshaw | December 19th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Sorry - what I mean is, when you approach someone via a blog/forum/etc. for a quote, etc. that approach is public too, so you may be picked up for being insensitive etc. (as the person who talked about arranging a ’shoot’ with someone after Virginia Tech discovered).
Also, re: ‘if it’s published it’s published’ - LiveJournal users see their blogging platform as a private form of communication between friends; likewise forum users and social networkers. An equivalent might be if you hear someone saying something in a pub, is it OK to reprint that?
9. alan cameron | December 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Thanks. I see, and I take the point.
I think ‘insensitive’ doesn’t even cover the Virginia Tech guy .. his approach was simply crass, and would have been crass on any platform and in any media.
But the big point coming out of this, as I see it, is this: Are blogs/forums/facebook etc really private forms of communication between friends or like-minded people, or are they published to the wider world - and as such fair game,as it were?
It’s an interesting analogy with overhearing a pub conversation .. I have never thought of it in that way before. But a conversation in a pub is expressly a communication between a finite number of people, and has a degree of privacy, whereas a forum or blog entry is posted globally.
Maybe another equivalent would be the letters column in a print newspaper?
10. paulbradshaw | December 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
A blog entry in LiveJournal is not necessarily posted globally, but only to ‘friends’; likewise a forum or mailing list. The letters column in a print newspaper is quite clearly public, as for the rest, there are no rules…
11. alan cameron | December 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Should there be?
12. ScribbleSheet Blog&hellip | February 23rd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
[...] to the power of anonymity online journalism throws up a whole new question of ethics. These need to be covered. There are no rules, or regulations about blogging or online reporting. [...]
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed