Online ethics

General questions to discuss before entering the social media environment.

Establishing ethical principles can lead to guidelines — not rules – to serve student decision-making. Open-ended questions produce informed discussion and good decisions.

Consider these questions before decision-making on ethical use of new/social media.
• In this situation, what is this journalist’s primary role?
• In this situation, what is this journalist’s role in the context of the moment?
• Does this content blur or blend the roles of reporter and commentator? If so, how should this content be labeled?
• Is innovation in tone and voice appropriately identified for this content?
• Is the content objective reporting, informed analysis, public relations or opinion?
• Should there be special identification or labeling for specific content?
• Does special content need be put through the same editing process as similar content on related print media? Why? Why not?
• Is there anything in use of new/social media to create the appearance of a conflict of interest, or to imperil the journalists’ ability to report objectively in the future?
• Is there anything in the use of new/social media to cause the principals in the coverage to doubt the accuracy or independence of the reporter’s future work on this topic?
• Have all the proper stakeholders been involved new/social media discussions?

Information gathering considerations

New and social media can certainly break information before “legacy” media can. No question. The use of anonymous sources and even the lack of identifiable sources in some reporting has communities questioning the validity of information. Enter new and social media which can break news more quickly and spread information further, and we have the potential for ethical problems.

• But, can and do scholastic new and social media get it right?
• How would our audiences be sure information so quickly reported isright?
• How will the audiences know your reporters found the right sources?
• Know that there is a diverse range of views?
• Know all stakeholders have a chance to present their story?

Given these points and questions, let’s consider the following points regarding information gathering:

• We recognize actions can be misinterpreted. Reporters may sign up for a group to get story ideas, but people may see them as a fan. Reporters should state their intentions often, in wall posts and other notifications. When appropriate, reporters should tell groups on signing up that they seek story ideas.

• We will state only what we know to be true – and clearly label it as verified information or opinion.

• We will link to sites we have verified to contain relevant and credible information in the context of the story being report, and free from unprotected speech as best we can determine.

• We will be sure there is adequate context and perspective for information so the audience receives a complete story.

• We will explain our decision making in terms of our process and our relationships, both institutional and personal.

• We have a clearly defined system for editing/vetting material before posting online and clearly outline the roles of each participant in the process.

• We will adequately inform our audiences of the differences among various forms of material on the site, including how we treat user-generated content, and how we distinguish it from staff-generated material and submissions from trusted sources.

Fairness and transparency

Detachment versus involvement. Observing versus participating. Traditionally, journalists have leaned more toward standing back so they can get the whole picture. They views will not slant their reporting as they build on the process of objectivity. New and social media can shatter that separation or sense of detachment.

• Can a simple “!” in a Tweet be seen as slanting a piece of information?
• Should a reporter be able to talk about his or her sources in personal social media?
• Should reporters friend sources?
• What is the process for obtaining sources from social media?
• Can you trust what and who you find there?
•How does one verify information gathered there?

Given these points and questions, let’s consider the following points regarding information gathering:

• We will keep our personal views of the news from new and social media unless giving views is our role for that medium and has been approved by our editors. Interjecting our views as reporters can damage not only our credibility but that of our publications.

• We will not create personal or professional attacks in our use of social media on the people you report on. We will keep the personal and the professional separate.

• We will limit our “friending” to those who will not be our sources.

• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

• We agree that staff members should conduct themselves in social media forums with an eye to how their behavior or comments might appear if called upon to defend them as a news organization. In other words, don’t behave any differently online than in any other public setting.

Promotion of work

A growing number of scholastic media publications now use Twitter and Facebook to let others know of upcoming events and as reminders for deadlines. In print media, we clearly differentiate between objective reporting and public relations, advertising and opinion. Those lines, at least in some student social and new media, are not as clear.

• Should they be?
• What is our obligation to help our audiences understand the differences?
•Should there be visual differences in the posts of objective and subjective information.
• Should students urge others to attend the choir concert at the same time and place they announce it?

Given these points and questions, let’s consider the following points regarding promotion of work using new media:

• We will maintain an independence from our school, our advertisers and our sources so our objectivity and credibility will not be compromised.

• We will avoid real or seeming conflicts of interest in our use of new and social media.

• We will keep our interests in serving the public interest and building audience separate so the two cannot be confused.

• We will distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.

• We believe journalists and news organizations should understand the necessity of defining, and clearly labeling, news and opinion. In an open environment like the Web, consistency in presentation can help the reader see clearly where the lines are drawn between news and opinion. Whenever journalists or organizations blur or blend those roles, they need to recognize the peril and weigh the consequences.

• We will not mix promotional/opinion statements with the same look on social media/new media.

Source of questions: Poynter Online Ethics Guide
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=117350&sid=26

Here are links to other discussion pages:

• Main page for comments
• Information gathering considerations
• Promotion of work
• Fairness and transparency.

Resources
• Kelly McBride, The Poynter Institute
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=117350&sid=26

• The Washington Post statement on employee use of social media
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2009/09/post_editor_ends_tweets_as_new.html

• A Blogger’s Code of Ethics
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php

• The Online Journalism Review
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/wiki/ethics/

• NPR News social media guidelines
http://www.npr.org/about/ethics/social_media_guidelines.html