Andy Warhol,the late grandfather of pop art, once claimed that in the future everyone would have their own, "15 minutes of fame." In today's technology fueled society, it seems this is becoming true whether individuals pursue the fame or not.
Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace now expose our everyday trials and tribulations to as many "friends" or "followers" that we can amass through real world friends, family, and occasionally
fans. While social networking sites were always designed with keeping colleagues in touch, as
Podger's article so blatantly shows, social networking has evolved into a phenomenon much larger than keeping old school chums in touch. Social networking sites now have the power to shape an individual's vocational career, just as quick as it can maim one. Creating a line of control between the accepted and the unaccepted on social networking sites is a legitimate concern for both aspiring and established professionals. Especially for those within the business of delivering un-biased news.
Steve Buttry, director of community engagement at Allbritton Communications, outlines some good bullet points in his
blog that he suggests journalists consider when using social networking sites:
-Consider everything public
-Consider everything signed
-Consider everything to be bogus
-Consider whether opinions are appropriate.
While Buttry's blog continues to talk about the specific pros and cons of various networking sites, I find these core values to be the meatiest part of the discussion. If we take in to fact that everything we publish is public, it harkens back to the "15 minutes of fame" quotation, in that we are publishing our ideologies or emotions to millions of people to access. Whether we are commenting as journalists or personal users, hitting publish is the equivalent to signing a release agreement, and opens the floodgates to be evaluated by the public. For some, this has been a highly profitable system, and for others it has lead to being a costly mistake.
Buttry, like many other analysts of social networking and journalistic reporting, does not deny that sites like Facebook and Twitter are fantastic sources for finding stories. But there is also the notion that a great deal of
deception goes on in the Internet, and a great deal of caution from news hunters that must be deployed to deliver the truth. Of course, this is easier said than done. The foundation of the Internet and social networking sites, is essentially a maelstrom of facts and lies looking to take advantage of the uninitiated, or taken advantage of by the savvy. Reporting today calls for journalists to be more savvy now, than perhaps ever before.
Clearly the guidelines between what is accepted, and what is unacceptable, begins with the bond between writer and editor. Not every editor is equal in how they value the legitimacy of social networking sites in journalistic reporting. While they should all consider the ideal, to stay competitive with other news outlets, how they evaluate the personal networking of their writers and their professional persona should be open to the editor's discretion.
If I was placed in the shoes of a published paper, the boundaries I established would correlate with the guidelines discussed in Buttry's blog. While writers should monitor their comments to make sure that what they are posting is appropriate, they should also consider making accounts that establish a clear differentiation between their public and private lives. While this in no way, shape, or form would establish a fool-proof safeguard between ethical discrepancies of my writers and their content. It would acknowledge the dual identity social networking sites play in our constantly connected society. It is simply not ethical to force writers to refrain from having some sort of personal identity after they clock out the office, but we can expect them to keep there words from tainting the professional work they release to the public.
As workers in a public environment, we take on the responsibility of knowing we are open targets to the public. The expansion of social networking sites has opened that vulnerability across the board for other industries as well. While writers should be granted the ability to have personal enjoyment through these sites, they must also be made aware that they face consequences if they abuse them. If caught acting in a truly ludicrous manner, they should expect punishment no different than that if they had acted in such a manner in a real-world newsroom.
It is important for editors to stress to their writers when and when not, something can be made available for discussion via networking sites. Further expansion of news gathering technologies and dispersion of news updates, should cause for a stronger bond between writer and editor, rather than an increase in penalty deliveries from editors onto writers for acting inappropriately via Internet applications.