The Problem With Crowdsourcing

Case 10-G

Crowdsourcing a Book: John Lehrer, Bob Dylan and Nonfiction Truth

Micro Issues

Larger publications are, for the most part, in the business of “one-upping” each other. There is tremendous competition at the top. Jonah Lehrer’s deceptions were discovered by a smaller publication because they have nothing to loose and everything to gain. Because of the allegations, they gain followers and curious viewers. The New Yorker conversely looses a staffer. The larger publications are focused on keeping their status on top.

Lehrer’s religious beliefs are not relevant to the story. Moynihan was a self-proclaimed Bob Dylan fanatic, that’s why TableT Magazine became involved.

It’s true that Lehrer’s age could have played a part in his poor decision-making, but I can’t help thinking that there should be more checks and balances from his editors, especially since the book and blogs were both published.

Midrange Issues

I think it was a good ethical decision for The New Yorker Web site to keep the blogs up on their site with the note about the content being published elsewhere. There is no reason for them to delete the post entirely, first, because some of the work is original. Many of the great thinkers of our time repeat themselves in their speeches and public appearances, it’s fair to say that a writer – or journalists – who is claiming to be an expert on a certain topic would restate many of the arguments he had previously put to pen.

The personal brand is a big strategy of communication professionals in today’s society. Creating a persona that reflects your own expertise is hugely applauded in media circles, but as we can see in Jonah Lehrer’s case, it can sometimes back fire. I witnessed firsthand Lehrer “personal brand” as I worked at a company that sponsored one of his personal appearances in Connecticut. It was shortly after the book Imagine came out. He appeared on stage with other up-and-coming millenials all with personal brands that made them stand out in their respective fields. The topic of the discussion was no less creativity - something that branding apparently is lacking.

Creativity is not the only avenue by which an up-and-coming journalist can experience ethical dilemmas, but it is the most notable one. Journalists thrive on originality and expertise. But it’s difficult for a young person of only 30 years to have studied something long enough to be an expert on it. Therein lies the dilemma, how can a person new to the field be an expert on it. Even social media changes with the speed of light. Ethical dilemmas that the media companies face who employ these young journalists are steeped in the naivety of the worker. We are young, fearless. We do not fully grasp how our decisions – that may have likely gotten us through college – can have serious ramifications in the real world, where there are critiquing eyes everywhere. Furthermore, the media companies can loose their credibility or their readership, which leads to their overall profitability.

Macro Issues

Jonah Lehrer should have created new content for the work he was doing at The New Yorker. But using his old work doesn’t seem so grievous to me. I guess the wrongdoing is that fact that he tried to pass it off as “new” content, which at best can be held up to a “rookie” mistake. Now, plagiarizing on the other hand is wrong. There are rules and policies against that in the journalism field and it’s a standard method of practice.

Barnes & Nobles’ decision to take Imagine off of their shelves is an interesting decision. On one hand, parts of the book are not accurate. But on the other, there are great tidbits of information to be gained by the reader. I think the bookseller may have chosen to take the book of the shelf to preserve its own reputation and “brand”.  Readers should be able to make their own judgment, but they can also access the book from other sellers.

Crowdsourcing is the way of modern journalism. It’s almost inevitable as there is just too much information on a subject by other reporters or observers. Also, it’s easy. In an age that demands for information and entertainment at a record pace, it’s almost impossible not to find another person’s work in your own research. Journalists are particularly susceptible to this as they are under tremendous time restrains and little original reporting is done.

Crowdsourcing ultimately alters the nature of journalism as it was intended, but in today’s society it may be more necessary to be able to elaborate on someone else’s story then to spend the resources to find your own.

Social media makes crowdsourcing so easy. I’m not sure to what extent there are limits to it in journalism.  

PRIVACY - Facebook: Should You Opt Out or In?

Case 5-B

Facebook: Should You Opt Out or In?

Micro Issues

There is a publicly held opinion that the information that is shared on Facebook is public and, unless your own personal privacy settings dictate, can be accessed and shared by various people. This presents somewhat of a conundrum: people’s desire to share their information and also their desire to conceal it.  For journalists the ethical question still remains, is accessing people’s information from their Facebook accounts OK? Taking into regard the current culture and society that we live in, I would say yes – even to access information about a private citizen. The Internet just makes it so easy. And arguably, the person gave “permission” by inputting the information in the first place. So, if it’s there, a journalist has the right to access it. Guidelines should be used to keep the journalist from sharing information that is not pertinent to their story. For example, if they are reporting on a crime committed an individual, they should not share information gathered from the person’s Facebook about the birth of a new child or of a family member’s birthday or any other non-related information.

When it comes to specifically selling the personal information of Facebook users to third-party advertisers there should be very strict guidelines in place. I am uncomfortable with the idea of “target marketing”. I am also uncomfortable with the idea of Facebook selling my name, age, college degree level and other types of personal information to some unknown company in order for that company to pedal merchandise to me. It seems sleazy – an unhonest way to “get to know your audience”. I am all for advertising, as I see recognize it’s role in the American economy. But I am against these deals – these information deals. As a consumer, it violates my trust of the social media site and the product that is being promoted.

Overall, there has to be some level of good practice procedures implemented into the gathering and/or sharing of private information on Facebook. Otherwise, Nissanbaum’s theory of privacy being the “control of the flow of information” would be rendered inaccurate as we as a society are moving toward having no control over that flow – hence, no private. And a society without privacy is not an ethically sound body. Whether journalist, communication professional or fellow private citizen, privacy controls should be upheld.

Midrange Issues

Deciding ownership is one of the most difficult ethical decisions of our time, usually because there is more then one party involved with the creation of a thing. The ethical dilemma: Deciding whether Facebook (company) owns the contented “created” on it’or if ownership belongs to the Facebook user who made it. The stakeholders: (1) Facebook: They have the right to own all of the content created on their site. (2) Facebook “friends”: They have the right to share information shared with them thru the site. (3) Facebook user: They have the right to ownership of the content they shared or created on the site. Actions and Consequences: (1) If Facebook has sole ownership of the content created on it’s site, it would be able to sell whatever information is obtains from it users without the user’s permission or fear of repercussions from legal oversight. This may cause the corporation to greatly increase its profit margins buy selling consumer information more readily. It may also deter new users from acquiring a Facebook account and decrease it’s usage overall. (2) If Facebook “friends” could own the information shared on the site, it would not likely cause much controversy amongst private citizens, but it may affect businesses and larger entities. They may limit their usage of Facebook and seek alternative marketing resources. (3) If the Facebook user has sole ownership of the information he/she has shared on Facebook it may cause the corporation to seek alternative revenue sources and might cause Facebook to start to charge users for opening an account.

It is not ethically sound to vet a job candidate based on their Facebook or Twitter account. The difference between requiring a drug test for job candidates and screening a social media account is that a social media account is a personal expression tool that allows users to share tidbits of their personal lives with others and using drugs is against the law. It can be reasoned that a person who tests positive on a drug test is in violation of most company policies and is not in an emotionally responsible state fitting for a the position.

Once you sign up from a social media account it seems you’re trapped. Your information is now available for anyone to access with one simple Google search. It would be nice to be able to delete yourself from social media accounts. But that option doesn’t truly exist.  Though you can “deactivate” a Facebook account, your information is saved and your account can be activated again by merely signing in. Yes, it should be an option to complete removed yourself (information included) from social media.

Though there is an ethical distinction between how Facebook connects you with friends by using your information and with how Facebook shares that same information with third parties, there isn’t a big one. Facebook users know what high school they graduated from, and the year they graduated. If they want to find old friends, they can search for them on the site. It’s just as much of a violation for Facebook to “suggest” users for you to friend as it is for Facebook to sell your zip code and job title to third party advertisers.

Macro Issues

Critiquing the notion that Facebook should operate on an opt-in basis for privacy sharing using the utilitarianism stance would suggest that all users should agree with Facebook’s privacy policy or all should be opposed to it, but that opting-in or out on an individual basis isn’t an accurate way to determine privacy needs or regulations.  This stance also suggests that whatever Facebook’s decision on privacy is, is “rightly ordered” and has taken into consideration the satisfaction of the majority of its users when making it’s determination. The one flaw with this argument is that corporations don’t consider the wellbeing of individuals when making business decisions. Corporations make decisions based on what’s financial and legally beneficial for their company – not the community as a whole.

I’m not sure if a governmental organization should regulate all social networking activity. Regulation should possibly start with the social media companies themselves. They should create regulatory departments if they desire to help monitor their site for stalking, bullying and the like.

There are a lot of ethical issues that can arise if the government starts to archive information posted on social media sites. The government may chose to “lose” some posts, they may start to regulate certain sites based off the information they are collecting and overall censorship of free speech may start to arise.

The problem with open-sourced ethics as it related to Facebook’s evolving privacy policy is that is does not protect the person who’s information is being shared. Open-source only benefits the buyer and seller of the information when it concerns privacy. The intention of the Facebook user is to share information with a select group of people, not with an unknown third party. Essentially, the user has to make the decision between recreationally using the site and sharing their private personal facts with strangers. That doesn’t seem like a fair exchange. Open-source makes it OK for the exchange that Facebook makes with its users (information for site access) to be sold in another exchange with the user having little to no information about the second-hand exchange of their personal data.

Twitter - Can You Scoop Yourself? (Journalism)

Case 4-C

Twitter Ethics for Journalists: Can You Scoop Yourself?

Macro Issues

The conversation discussing the distinguishing of journalists’ personal and professional social media accounts is a tricky one. Personally, I think that if you are a journalist and are using social media is a core part of your job duties, you should strongly consider not using it in your personal life; especially if you’re only going to be posting the same type of content you would for your work purposes.  If your going to have separate accounts, let them truly be separate and post vacation photos, not breaking news.

The case study doesn’t mention whether Schlesinger’s editor had a positive or negative reaction to being “scooped”. But, I wouldn’t be upset or put off by it. Ultimately, Schlesinger is an employee of Reuters – not to mention, he’s the EIC – I wouldn’t have a problem “re-tweeting” posts from his personal account. At that level of management, many of the personal aspects of his life are governed by his involvement at Reuters.

If Schlesinger had been a freelancer, it would have been a different case. A freelance is not at the same level as the Editor-in-Chief. His or her allegiance to the organization is not as pronounced as the Editor-in-Chief’s. Therefore, Reuters scooping one of their freelancer’s tweets would have just been a money issue, not a journalistic integrity one.

Midrange Issues

Social media has forever changed the nature of news. It has particularly changed the functions in which news is collected and disseminated. Twitter was one of the primer social media sites that news organizations flocked to to disseminate their information. It was an innovative and powerful tool in its early days. But as the flood of Twitter users have changed the “culture” of the online medium, news reporters and organizations have little resistance in staying biased if they are going to use Twitter as an information gathering tool or as a means to distribute information. Opinion seems to rule social media. That leaves little room of objectivity, the same objectivity the news was founded on. But some would argue that most things must adapt to survive. So it is possible that the news’ gradual shift toward becoming less objective and more immediate and sensational is a necessary tool of survival.

Many times large news organizations do not pay attention to the fotter that is written about them online. It’s only if the accusation becomes “viral” or poses a risk of effecting the company’s image or profitability that you will see an organization will respond. I don’t think it’s necessary to put energy into specific guidelines about how to respond to criticisms online.

Twitter has many uses; promoting things is one of those functions. In that context, it’s appropriate to use it for the “promotion” of news.

Macro Issues

The reason news has had to adapt to social media’s pace and personal nature is because audiences are becoming increasingly more aware of what they want. The changing demands of the audience make social networking sites the perfect place for journalists to communicate news.  Some of the concepts supported by Ross’s duties that are support my claims are reparation and beneficence. The first concept allows media companies to make quick apologies. Therefore meeting the culture’s need to for instant gratification. A similar thing can be said for beneficence since most people feel that the more readily available information is the better of they are as informed citizens.

My friends are universal more concerned with getting credible news then getting news “first”. One person said they go online to do further research into issues, rather then to stay abreast of the news. This information surprised me. I thought today’s generation would like to have things fast. But, what we are noticing is that fast is not always best, or even reliable. So, my friends want to know ultimately, who they can trust to give them accurate news.