Ethics Critique

Social media sites such as Face book, Myspace, and Twitter are becoming a necessary tool in the journalist’s arsenal. However, as the article by Pamela J. Podger, The Limits of Control, points out these sites create almost as many problems as they do solutions. Where to draw the ethical line when it comes to new media is a difficult question and one that has no clear answer.

First and foremost I agree with the thoughts of Mary Hartney of the Baltimore Sun when she says that any policy on social media must be “a living document.” These types of new technology are constantly changing and the regulations and policies governing them must adapt as well. We cannot predict what new journalistically helpful or harmful tools Facebook or Twitter will add to their sites next year, next month, or even tomorrow. All policies must be open to change.

Though there is no absolute solution, the best option is for reporters to have separate profiles on all of these sites for their professional and personal lives. As the article states, “One is for friends, family, and classmates, while the other is for sources, bosses and coworkers.” However the solution is not this simple. Further guidelines are necessary. The Washington Post does not approve of two separate pages because they worry about “Who you are on one page and who on another?” according to the article. The Wall Street Journal agrees. The Journal's policies, some of which can be found here, seem short sighted to me. The journalist is the same person on both pages but simply makes clear which page is personal and which page is professional. Making this distinction clear is essential. Furthermore, you must use restraint on your personal page. Even though it is not your professional page, you are still a representative of your media outlet. However, this is no different than a teachers Facebook page representing their school district.

When using your professional page you should always identify yourself as a journalist. If you do not tell them ahead of time you should not use the information. This is parallel to a source going off the record in an interview. On these sites, even your designated personal page, you should be careful of obvious political bias. However, if your reporting is objective it should speak for itself and give you credibility. As the article points out, regardless of social media use “you don’t want anybody to read your story and discern what your political leanings are.” The New York Times policy on Facebook asks that reporters leave their political preference portion of their profile blank. This seems like a minor sacrifice for reporters to make.

We must try to put ourselves in the positions of those involved in these decisions. AS much as editors may dislike it, reporters are human being first and journalists second. The social media phenomenon is a worldwide event and it is not fair to exclude journalists from it. They are complete people and deserved to be treated as such. Furthermore, as Jeff Jarvis points out that these sites “provide the opportunity for reporters and editors to come out from behind the institutional voice of the paper -- a voice that is less and less trusted -- and to become human.” This is an opportunity for newspapers to regain public trust. If the public can see that real people are reporting these events, perhaps they will be more trustworthy. I acknowledge that editors have legitimate concerns. They need their reporters to be representatives of their organization, be cautious of safety issues, and make sure that they are not scooped by their own employees. However, I side with the individual freedom of the reporter, not the organization. Continue using social media, but with caution.