Discuss.
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4628
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A blog about what is new in Web writing and production.
Posts
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(42)
-
▼
November
(16)
- Blogging the Mumbai bombings
- Updating Online News: what's the standard?
- A Light View of Obama Newser
- Why you are smart to be in the IJ program, Part I
- No on Facebook
- Of interest only: Should Journalists be Facebook f...
- From the Mall
- Live Blogging from the Walkathon
- Walking with the Walkathon
- Comment here on Comparing Coverage: Liveblogs, Twi...
- A sign of the times--in more ways than one
- Came across an interesting article over at Poynter...
- Timely, on videography at WaPo.com
- How to make money as a journalist: Be your own boss
- Wow! The NYT's interactive piece "Choosing a Presi...
- Welcome to "Cameron"
-
▼
November
(16)
4 comments:
No, journalists should NOT become Facebook friends with sources. I don't like even getting too "chummy" with any source. I like a good professional distance. Also, if someone accepts a source as a facebook friend, it's now "on the record" and, I believe, a mark against you.
I see the merit in Michael's argument, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.
I personally use Facebook to keep up with friends, some of whom I don't see very often in person. If you're friends with someone on Facebook, particularly if their Facebook page is viewable only to friends (as many are), you're privy to what they choose to share with only their friends.
If you wanted to "keep tabs" on someone you cover, Facebook can be a great way to do that.
I think as more and more people use Facebook and other social networking sites, the definition of "friend" in this context will become more pliable. Just because you're "Facebook friends" with someone doesn't mean that you're friends with them in real life. And as time progresses and younger generations who frequently use Facebook get older, I think more and more people will be redefining what it means to be "friends" with someone online.
Although, having said all that, I think a distinction should be made between Amy's "people covered" and Michael's "sources." I think there's a difference between the two, and I'd probably feel more comfortable friending a person I covered than I would friending a source (especially an anonymous one who I had no other relationship with).
The first time I received a Facebook friend request from someone that I was covering, it made me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Did I want this person involved in my online life?
I thought about it and realized that 'friending' someone is a quick and easy way of learning more about that person while expanding your network of sources. Now you can contact that source in a way that is less formal than a telephone call or e-mail.
Ultimately, it depends on what you use Facebook for:
If you baby blog, post pictures of drunken college parties, or provide a minute by minute account of your latest bout with Internet Addiction Disorder then mixing the work with pleasure is not advisable.
I use Facebook to stay in touch with people and maintain academic and professional relationships.
There are privacy options that you can use to control the amount of information a "friend" can see.
It is not a conflict of interest to 'friend' someone unless you make it a conflict of interest.
If you are a new media journalist, this is just another way for people to communicate.
Anthony Calabrese's Facebook profile
Laura,
I think it's interesting that you make a distinction between someone you "covered" and a "source."
When does someone you "cover" no longer become a "source"?
Is it when your story is published?
Are you now friends?
There may be instances in which you become "friends" with someone you interviewed for a story.
They may invite you to an event or email you or call you.
But what if you have to cover them again? Will it be ethical to now do a story on your "friend"?
Post a Comment