A consultation is being undertaken in the UK by the industry watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), to look into the use, by newpapers, of material taken from public social networking sites. Apparently people are complaining that the information they made available to the public via sites such as MySpace, Meebo, and Facebook has been used by journalists to either create or ‘flesh out’ stories.
My initial response, on reading this, was to laugh and say well, “The information you put onto public social networking sites is - err - public, and the press have the right to access any public information.” Although my initial feeling on this still substantially stands, I will agree, however, that the issue isn’t as quite straightforward as it initially appears.
After some of the recent campus shootings in America, some journalists went digital door-stepping - that is, they went onto these networking sites and contacted students from the institutions concerned, asked questions, and used quotes, and downloaded (and published) available photographs. In response to objections, the journalists argued that this practice was likely to be less stressful than literally knocking on campus doors and taking flash pictures of traumatized people. (It was certainly cheaper and easier for the journalists.)
Personally, I am happy to accept that journalists can go digital door-stepping, provided that they clearly identified themselves as journalists while they were on the social networking sites. I am concerned that there may have been copyright infringement over using the photographs - and this is an issue that the PCC could look into.
What is unacceptable to me, and clearly worthy of investigation by the PCC, are claims that some journalists went ‘undercover’ on social networking sites, posed as ‘non-journalists’ and then used the communication to gather information and publishable quotes. However, I doubt that my objections would carry too much weight as many newspapers occasionally (perhaps regularly) encourage journalists to work under false names and identities to get information, using the public interest as justification. I can see that as far as newspapers are concerned cyber-deception to get a story is a logical extension of ordinary deception and some current practice.
It seems to me that there are two big issues that need to be addressed here, and both of them would probably fall outside the remit of the Press Complaints Commission. The first concerns the truth of any online information. Many people have used the Internet to create false identities which they use to ‘play with’ online. Others have used social networking sites to ‘enhance the truth’ of their actual existence (a relative of mine has published information on MySpace which I know to be false). At some point (if it hasn’t already happened) a newspaper will be embarrassed to find that the information gathered on a social networking site and published is fake. Of course, face-to-face interviews can also be full of lies, but good journalists will try to triangulate information to verify facts. I suspect that face-to-face interviews may make deception easier to detect, especially if a journalist becomes suspicious of non-verbal behaviour. Because online information is at least one step removed from the here and now, it is even more important for journalists to verify the information before using it.
The second issue concerns the naivety of the public. It beggars belief how stupid some people are in relation to the Internet (see Entertaining Absurdity). What is needed is not a campaign to regulate the usage of public information by the media, but more education about using the Internet sensibly. I would suggest that the curriculum ought to include at least instructions on how to restrict access to any information you put on social networking sites so that it is ‘public’ only to known associates. The way forward, in my view, is not to punish everybody by restricting the benefits of the Internet for all, but to inform the naive about the possible consequences of their actions.
A very thought provoking blog.
I agree with the following points.
1) That people can and will sometimes leave false information as part of their character fantasy/fabrication.
2) Journalist must realise that this type of source of information needs carfeful varification if it is to be used for any further publication by them, eg, Newspaper story.
3) The public do need better education/ awareness of the pitfuls of using MySpace, Facebook etc,bearing in mind their information is published in such a public arena. I like the idea of having private restricted access, parallel with flickr private photo option.
4) There is a ethical issue here as well. I understand that someone or individuals posted onto YouTube a video showing the rape of one women, who had been drugged and attacked in front of her crying children. I don’t believe any journalist should use this sorce of information for a story, as it would be almost be legitamising the source of the information-even if this were to highlight the terrible crime commited. There needs to be a moderation system in place as to what is being shown on YouTube.
5) Some mindless and cruel people should not stop the majority of people publishing on the interenet the rich and varied sources of information, photos, stories and videos that are on here. We have already discussed the positiveness of blogging etc, (in the light of current criticism that it waters down creativity to mediocrity). However, with more and more people using the internet I feel there will be more regulation needed to protect people, not only having their privacy violated due to naivety but to stop the gross mis-use, illustrated by point four.
Any regulation on provision or use of information on public networking sites would be very difficult to police.
I agree with your point about educating people on the way to use these sites. On a face-to-face basis, be it with a friend, an acquaintance or a journalist, people tend to be more sensible, more reticent, they think more carefully about what they will say. But online, where they perhaps adopt a slightly different persona (and we probably all do that to an extent) it is easy to be more confident, more forthcoming - for words to spill out and things to be said that you would not have said in person. And yet these words stay there for so long, whereas those we speak are generally gone as soon as we have uttered them. People need to think more about what they are saying online, what they are writing for the world to see, and to be sure that the person to whom they are confiding their inner thoughts is really who they say they are, and is someone they can trust.
The whole Myspace thing of collecting hundreds upon hundred of “friends” - just little icons on your screen in most cases - tends to make people believe they are out of reality, that what they say and do does not really matter. But often reality is out there lurking, waiting to get you.
haha - I’ve had some experience of being misled on line and yet I am a very cynical and questioning sort. I learnt the hard way. It would be good to think that others do not have to learn by bitter experience.