A (serious) warning.
So, I’m a journalist. While my beat’s fairly specialized, infrequently I have to cover a scandal, or even a horrible tragedy.

I am very bad at this aspect of the job. I’m all too aware how intrusive it is to call relatives and ask them “how do you feel”. A hearty f-off is the usual response, and quite understandably so.

But nowadays, it often doesn’t matter what response you get. The internet provides all.

Today, the first thing a reporter does with a tragedy is to search for the affected person online. It’s not hard to find any social networking site profiles, giving you their interests, activities, and sometimes an address or phone number. The names of all their friends and probably family will be there too. They’ll be found and called for comments.

And all those photos? They’re public domain. The paper will take the one with the most pathos for its front page. (Died in a tragic boating accident? There’s a photo of you sailing with your sister? Perfect.)

I’ve written entire stories about the lives of people solely from their social network profiles, whether they’re Facebook, Myspace, Bebo or whatever. In general, people have no idea how much of their life is out there for people to see.

Seriously - use the privacy settings. Don’t let everyone access your profile, and don’t put the details of your life out there for all to see unless you’re truly unconcerned about the consequences. It’s just not worth it.
(silencer, Thu 11 Sep 2008, 23:29, 9 replies)

"public domain"?
Are you sure?
( le brian, Fri 12 Sep 2008, 0:54, closed)

^ More of this.
It's definitely the type of thing that should be considered by everyone that spends a decent amount of time on the tubes.

Privacy is like virginity - one measly cock-up and you've ruined it.

Y_S
(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_ =o.o=, Fri 12 Sep 2008, 1:20, closed)

What I'd like to see is
the default privacy options set to private for new users.

This will never happen however.
(Shippy likes linebreaks and doesn't care what you think, Fri 12 Sep 2008, 1:39, closed)

Those photos on MySpace, Facebook, etc? They aren't public domain.
If you're really a journalist and are really using photographs taken from MySpace, Facebook, etc, you're putting the companies you write for at risk of a lawsuit if you use those photographs without permission.

If you read the terms of service of most social networking sites, you'll find that uploading pictures to them works very much like a model release - the uploader gives the rights to reuse, edit, etc, the image to the owners of the site - if memory serves, Facebook's boilerplate upload agreement also gives them the right to use your images in advertising for Facebook and it's partners - not any journalists that happen to be passing through. The images are explicitly copyrighted to the photographer and, depending on the boilerplate, the site they're uploaded to. Not you.

Personal information, however? If it's in the public eye, copy away.

All of this has a big 'if you're in the UK' tag attached, I don't know how it works anywhere else. I am not a solicitor and I am definitely not your solicitor, this is not legal advice, etc.
( Shegetz Chris Kamara's comedy moustache, Fri 12 Sep 2008, 3:08, closed)

journos
I was speaking to a journo about this the other night, I was bemoaning the fact the network nazis at work have blocked facebook, he replied that its encouraged at his office as it means they can get more info on the subject.
(polar69, Fri 12 Sep 2008, 6:39, closed)

so
xx I’ve written entire stories about the lives
xx of people solely from their social network
xx profiles, [...]

Well, perhaps you _call_ yourself a journalist, but your own words betray you.
(haberman is singing in the changes, Fri 12 Sep 2008, 13:25, closed)

I should add -
My paper's not in the UK. So the rules may be different here. But it often takes photos from those sites and runs them, although it of course credits them to the respective website. I guess "public domain" might be a stretch, but the point is that the photos still get used.

With regard to the morality of all this - ethically, if you've made every attempt you can to contact the people involved and not had success, then there's nothing incorrect with using the sources that are available to put together your story.

But yes, it's less than ideal. That's why I posted.
(silencer, Fri 12 Sep 2008, 16:33, closed)

The Sun and the Mail
both wrote such an article about a teenage boy a few years younger than me who killed himself. The article included completely inaccurate inferences from his social networking pages, as well as offensive and inaccurate speculation as to the motives behind his death. It's not in the public interest to publish any more than the facts of the incident, if that, and snooping social networks for personal details and pictures is certainly not newsworthy.

If you have any moral compass you should seriously consider paying more attention to it before printing that sort of stuff without the family having given consent to the media.

Reporters who behave like that are cunts.
( greedyostrich Cheese is evil! Cheddar is VOODOO!, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 21:24, closed)

In case you think this is made up
See the following from the UK. An entire article researched on Social Networking Sites:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053634/The-dark-Bebo-If-think-children-safe-having-harmless-fun-social-networking-sites-think-again.html

It is a bit scary though...
(Big Fish Been around since the internet was just fields., Mon 15 Sep 2008, 23:57, closed)