Social media's gray area of ethics

When reading about the New Haven Independent's coverage of the 2009 murder of Yale student Annie Le, it is refreshing to see such a small, online, grassroots organization take the helm of coverage in a major case. However, their access to Jessica Del Rocco's social media account raises some difficult questions for journalists.

On the one hand you agree with the side that says, Del Rocco did accept Bailey's friend request and did not deny her access once she discovered Bailey was a reporter. Yet on the other hand you have to think about the implications of running the content gleaned on Facebook as well as the precedent you were setting. Do we assume consent based on what is NOT said or done?

Despite the difficulty of these questions I think there is a very clear path The Independent had to follow, not only to cover this story, but also to set the best possible standard for future situations in a perpetually gray area of news coverage.

First off Bailey already admitted that, were she able to do it all over again, she would have identified herself as a reporter when she initially friend requested Del Rocco. That is a definite precedent that journalists in the future should follow. Still she did acknowledge herself as such eventually and that paired with the fact that although their are certain privacy settings, the Internet overall is a public domain, makes a compelling argument for use of the material.

You have to weigh how integral they are to the case and to the story they are providing the readers with. If the information is not useful there is not sense in running it and risking not only hurting someone, but also dealing with the ethical dilemma it entails.

I think however in this case the information is compelling, it provides a history and a context for the events that have taken place and the people involved. The Independent had up to this point set the bar in case coverage and tread the line of ethics carefully where other organizations had not. But all things considered, they should not shy away from this coverage.

What you put on the Internet is public at the end of the day, no matter how you cut it. The Facebook posts provide excellent context to a national story. It's what it can provide outweighs withholding it, especially when the OVERALL privacy of Del Rocco would be protected.

That being said I think they owe it to Del Rocco to make it aware that they plan to discuss her use of Facebook to express her thoughts on the case and her history with the accused. They should once again offer her an interview to better explain her posts or give more context if she feels uncomfortable with their use of the content.

That is the best way she can make herself and her statements absolutely clear. If she still declines and interview then readers will have to determine the context based on what they have.

I think that although these are tough decision to make, decisions that I am sure many will disagree on, the Independent has shown a respect for the process of reporting, the sources involved and their readers. The fact that they stopped and thought through using Del Rocco's Facebook content further proves that. At the end of the day they have to continue to weigh that respect against what is necessary, even when it is tough.