To Post or Not to Post...Is That the Question?

Emily Willis
ew149707@ohio.edu

As with every emerging medium of journalism, the phenomenon of social media and the Internet at large has caused some serious dialogue. Sound statements have been made both advocating for the benefits and against the perils of online reporting, especially with respect to just how much journalists can personalize their online personalities without creating a conflict of interests.

One such quip is that of Seattle Times digital news and innovation editor Kathy Best when she asserts that, “At what point does transparency begin to erode journalistic integrity?” However, Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia University dean of student affairs argues from the view of how the revolution of social media merely reflects historical change. “If your news organization is fixed in what it can and cannot to do, that’s a mistake. It would be as if you cemented all roles in 1912. You wouldn’t have done that. You might make a mistake if you’d done that,” says Sreenivasan.

These precautions are wise and exemplify the classic “grain of salt” mindset with which most people regard new methods and technology. With advancement comes both progress and new obstacles, from the Industrial Revolution to the social media frenzy we’re experiencing today.

Online reporting has undoubtedly led to some great positives for breaking news, given those in the U.S. more profound opportunity for expression and facilitated better communication across the globe.

However, issues of privacy have arisen for individuals both in and out of the public eye. While it may not seem fair that the lives of journalists, political figures or even spouses of celebrities are under more daily scrutiny than average joes, it’s a reality that we must face in today’s constantly plugged in world. Asking these public figures to tone down or even eliminate their social media profiles is certainly intrusive, but encouraging responsibility when sharing personal information or viewpoints for all the world to see seems only prudent when dealing with issues of bias and personal security.