Nowadays the Internet is a popular place for teens and young adults to join chat rooms or blog on a website. Many times these teens and young adults disclose information about themselves to others and become friends with complete strangers. With other people able to see the conversations the potential risk of their information leaving the chat room is likely.
What exactly is a lurker? According to the article a lurker is someone who joins a chat room to solely read the conversations of other members rather than actually participating in a conversation.
The problem arises when a reporter from a news source joins the chat room to obtain information without making themselves known and using the privileged information without the member or member’s knowledge. The ethical question being considered is if the reporter should notify the chat room of their presence and quote the conversation. In an example a reporter went in to a chat room for gay and lesbian teens. The reporter lied about her age to get into the chat room and then began to 'lurke'. What made this situation different is after being in the chat room for a while the reporter notified the chat room of her occupation and her reasoning behind being in the chat room. This situation can be considered both ethical and unethical.
I believe that being an invisible lurker is completely unethical. By not notifying the members of who you are and your reason for being in the chat room this violates the SPJ Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics states, "Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story." By not identifying yourself as a reporter you are violating the Code of Ethics. As far as identifying yourself and making it known to the members what you purpose is that is completely ethical. The members now know there is a reporter in the chat room and that they may potentially use information from the conversations with consent. By making the members aware the reporter has allowed for the members to make the choice to continue to participate or leave the chat room.
I feel that you treat people the way you want to be treated. I know in my personal opinion I would notify anyone that I was participating in the conversation and my purpose for doing so.
Paige Kirchubel
To see this article, click http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1065048923.php
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I completely agree. It is unethical for a journalist to use a source without permission. A journalist should seek the strongest sources for an effective story. They need to properly identify sources, and with this proper identification comes permission from the source. There are some situations where a source will not be identified, like to preserve the integrity of a minor or security concerns. Not becuase their words were "lurked" on the internet. A journalist should never use a source without consent. Internet lurking is similar to eavesdropping; it is a weak investigation. It is sad when a journalist must revert to internet lurking in order to draft a story.
Post a Comment