Then, using Google Maps, the paper was able to direct a reporter and a photographer to her home. The paper claimed that by cross-referencing online sources it had 'put our people on Sperling's doorstep'.
What's missing here is any indication that the paper's reporters and editors had considered any ethical implications of what they were doing.
That Facebook's privacy settings allow 'users to leapfrog through' one person to another is claimed as a justification, rather than a problem.
There is no reflexive consideration that the paper itself is breaching someone's privacy and trust in pursuit of a story, just a claim that the paper had done it before: 'It wasn't the first time we had achieved this'.
In an email response from the paper, senior reporter David Fisher wrote that Facebook users have an individual responsibility to maintain their own privacy settings and that on this story 'it was about being honest with the readers'.
One of the first codes of ethics for reporters relating to how to manage their social networking activities was produced by the New York Times in January 2009.
In the preamble, the Times' assistant editor Craig Whitney sets the tone and highlights the value of Twitter and Facebooks for reporters: 'Facebook can help reporters do triangulation on difficult-to- research subjects.
What people write on social networking sites is publicly available information, like anything posted on any site that is not encrypted.'
In this statement the Times is clearly establishing the principle (rightly or wrongly) that whatever is posted to social networking sites is public information and available to news organizations without the permission of the copyright holder or reference to privacy issues.
Instead, the guidelines appear to be predominantly about protecting the company's brand and this is also a major concern for the business news agency Bloomberg.
The first statement in the New York Times code relates to political stance or controversial groups and staffers flagging their own political beliefs in cyberspace: '.. do nothing that might cast doubt on your or The Times's political impartiality in reporting the news.'
The Associated Press rules are similar, with the emphasis being on protecting the reputation of the brand rather than the ethical use of social networking for news-gathering (Associated Press, 2009).
The New York Times code also calls into question the status of friendship on sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter:.. being a "friend" of someone on Facebook or especially Myspace is almost meaningless and does not signify the worth nor kind of relationship that could pose a conflict of interest for a reporter or editor investigating that person.' This 'rule' finally ends up justifying the slash and burn approach to social networking friends.
Why does the rule about this have to differ from more traditional journalistic contacts? As well as dealing only perfunctorily with privacy, there's no mention here of confidentiality. What about treating information you glean on Facebook as 'off-the- record'? If a real friend tells you something that you might think is newsworthy enough to report, would you do it without asking their permission?
Would you do it by compromising their relationship with an employer or lover, for example? If you have any ethical boundaries at all, probably not. Why should information gathered through social networking sites be treated differently? There are millions of Facebookers who would disagree that their virtual friendships are almost meaningless.
Seek4media is an independent voice on the web. We report today's news responsibly and truthfully so that readers can improve their own lives and increase their understanding and respect for their neighbors next door and around the globe. In our approach and in our content, we uphold universal human values, rights, and freedoms. We are a business that puts our readers' interests first, in all that we do.
