During class on Tuesday, Feb. 19, we will have a multimedia case study: The Facebook Conundrum: The New Haven Independent and the Annie Le Murder. The case, which is free, is part of the Knight Case Studies Initiative at Columbia University‘s Graduate School of Journalism. You can print out a PDF if you’d like, but take advantage of the multimedia elements, such as audio interviews with the main characters and links to their bios.
The case study assignment is worth 30 points. The first part, worth 15 points, is to post a brief response (250 words or less) as a comment to this blog entry addressing one of these two questions:
1. What are Bailey’s responsibilities to Del Rocco when reporting on her Facebook page?
2. What factors should Bass weigh to determine whether to run Del Rocco’s posts?
Your response must be posted by 11:59 p.m. Monday, Feb. 18, for full credit. In your response, cite specific facts from your own reading of the case. It’s not acceptable to piggy-back on your classmates’ answers without reading the case yourself.
The second 15 points will be awarded on the basis of your contributions to the case study discussion in class.
Enjoy the case! (And bring your ‘A’ game on Tuesday.)
Bailey had the responsibility to let Del Rocco know that first she was a journalist. Once Del Rocco knew that and denied the interview, she had every opportunity to “unfriend” Bailey. But, she did not do that. Instead, she gave continued access to someone whom she knew was a reporter and could search all of her postings and information. Bailey in order to be “ethical” to the Independent’s standards could have messaged her and asked if it were O.K. to use information from her page etc, but it was not legally required or a responsibility.
I believe that Bailey did not owe Del Rocco an explanation initially, like she thought she did. Bailey thought that she should have told her she was a journalist at first, and I don’t think so. Bailey, as a journalist, was looking for information to strengthen her story. When Del Rocco started to post things that Bailey could use against ex-boyfriend, then I think it was Bailey’s duty to at least send Del Rocco a message letting her know that she was a journalist. The message probably should have told Del Rocco that she[Bailey] was a journalist that is following the story of her ex-boyfriend’s murder case. After she did that, and Del Rocco declined the interview, if Del Rocco did not want her to use the information on her page, she should have deleted her as a friend.
Although I think everything on Del Rocco’s page, Bailey could use, Bailey could consider some things before using the information. Bailey could read in her posts that Del Rocco was in “utter shock” and that she “felt 16 again,” that kind of tells Bailey that maybe Del Rocco is hurt by the news. Maybe she does not want to relive her past with her ex-boyfriend. I think she can consider some of Del Rocco’s feelings about that and about being dragged into the case as a witness or something. Especially, if she said something that could convict her ex.
As Bailey acknowledged herself, the biggest mistake she made was not identifying herself as a reporter when friending Del Rocco. Del Rocco unknowingly gave a reporter access to her personal information and posts, creating an ethical dilemma for The Independent.
While Del Rocco should be more selective with her friend requests, Bailey is responsible for telling her that since she accepted, her information is considered public and can be used in an article. She should have warned Del Rocco after she declined an interview with Bailey, because Del Rocco might have reconsidered the interview to make sure her posts don’t get used out of context.
I agree with Bass and Bailey’s decision to shield Del Rocco’s identify if they went with the story. Since Del Rocco accepted Bailey’s request unaware that she is a reporter, Bailey is responsible for protecting Del Rocco’s privacy during a highly publicized criminal investigation. I don’t think it would be fair to gain access to someone’s private information without being identified as a reporter, and publishing the information without some sort of protection of the person’s identity.
It’s tempting as an editor to want to publish and push a story when you have the scoop on something no one else has reported. In this case, reporter Bailey found a police report revealing the ex-girlfriend of Clark, Del Rocco, who had been allegedly sexually assaulted by Clark. The risk that you take when publishing a new lead on a national story, a murder in this case, is that you are also going to be held fully responsible for what is reported. Though Bailey had fairly gotten access to Del Rocco’s Facebook posts, regarding her responses to Clark being a suspect, there are still some ethical issues at hand. For one, Bailey asked for an interview and was told no by Del Rocco. Secondly, Bailey never asked if she could use the responses/posts (even with protected identity). Lastly, there is a level of trust that was established when Del Rocco kept her as a friend even after Bailey identified herself.
Factors for Bass to consider:
1) By reporting from a social medium that doesn’t already have lines defined in terms of privacy rules, be prepared to endure the consequences. He should ask: Is this absolutely necessary to the story? If so, how will the community/media respond to this? Am I willing to risk The New Haven Independent by disclosing this post?
2) Once Del Rocco is notified that her posts were taken without her definite permission, there is a huge possibility of backlash (family, friends, etc). He should ask: Am I willing to jeopardize the ethical standards of the paper by reporting this?
3) In my opinion, there still isn’t enough evidence to run the posts. A past police report, a history with a suspect, and Facebook posts still need more ground-breaking weight. Though she may seem as a noteworthy source in the crime, he should ask: what solid credibility does a Facebook post really carry?
4) Most importantly: Is running these posts going to impact the community in a positive or negative way? If both, determine which is worth it. He should ask: Does the good outweigh the bad of breaking news on the posts?
When individuals post thoughts, pictures, and videos onto their private accounts, they are under the impression that it is in fact private, for their group of “friends” only. Sadly, this is not entirely the case.
Alfred Hermida explained it well in the case study, saying, “It is private in the sense that it was intended for a specific audience of friends. But it is also publicly available online.”
Thus, Melissa Bailey had every right to use Jessica Del Rocco’s information after she friended her but she should have identified herself as a reporter and journalist in her request. I believe this is one of every journalist’s responsibilities to his or her sources.
We are always taught to identify ourselves and make sure that our sources know that what they say can be printed. In the same manner, Bailey should have told Del Rocco what her intentions in friending her were.
I believe Bailey had Del Rocco’s best interest in mind in withholding her name. Once Del Rocco had come forward to the media, I would have updated the story with her name but to maintain the balance between public and private information, Bailey had a responsibility to withhold her name from the article.
This is a very interesting case and one that I think has become more relevant than ever. I think as a reporter, Bailey had a responsibility to Del Rocco to protect her privacy. First off, Del Rocco, from what I understood, was a victim of sexual assault by the suspect. It is never OK to publish a sexual assault victim’s name. The information that was found on Del Rocco’s page was undoubtedly newsworthy, but she also declined an interview when approached by Bailey. I think Bailey should pursue these Facebook posts, but she should ask Del Rocco for permission to use them and promise to not reveal her name. Bass and Bailey need to consider the fact that as a local news source, they have loyalty to their audience and if they decline to consider their feelings, their relationship with their neighborhood will be hurt. If they publish the posts without Del Rocco’s knowledge, they could hurt their credibility as an institution which would in turn, lower their journalistic integrity. I am torn on this issue, because I also think that when you post things on the internet, they are in a public forum and therefore fair game, but in this instance I do not think that they should publish them immediately.
Bailey asked Del Rocco if she would sit down for an interview and she declined. I think Bailey should have then followed up and asked her if she could use the Facebook posts in her story, stressing she would not be identified. Why not just ask, and eliminate the question of ethics altogether? If she says no, then all they would be losing is a few small quotes to add “color and currency to the story about the police report,” quotes that couldn’t even be attributed to a specific person other than naming her the one that filed that report several years ago. I’m also not convinced that keeping Bailey as a friend is the same as giving her consent to use all her updates in the press. If she denied an interview, then she probably doesn’t want her words associated with the murder. Bass should determine whether these short quips from Facebook are worth stepping over the lines of privacy and ethics.
I see nothing wrong with Paul Bass, the Independent’s creator and editor, publishing Jessica Del Rocco’s Facebook posts. Users should never treat Facebook like a diary. Even if you restrict your privacy settings to only allow your “friends” to see the posts, as Del Rocco did, you are still airing your dirty laundry to hundreds of people. I highly doubt Del Rocco valued all her 350 “friends” as people she shared intimate and personal relationships with.
Bass is also in the right because his managing editor, Melissa Bailey, identified herself as a reporter in a Facebook message to Del Rocco. Bailey was completely transparent and Del Rocco could have “un-friended” Bailey if she was worried about sensitive information getting out in the press.
As journalists, our primary job is to report the facts to the public. Del Rocco’s posts aren’t sensationalizing the story. Bailey was right when she said the posts “would add newsworthy color and currency to the story about the police report” (9).
If Del Rocco sued The Independent for libel, I don’t think she would be successful. She could cite “Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts” as grounds for libel, but the First Amendment protects journalists for matters of the public record and legitimate matters of public concern. Precedent also comes to Bailey’s defense. In Florida Star v BJF in 1989, the Court denied damages to a woman who had been robbed and sexually assaulted and whose name was published in the Police Reports section of a newspaper.
As college students, we also need to understand the reality that digital journalism blurs the line between our public and private lives. We are responsible for the content we post. If we choose to post a photo of us doing a keg stand at a frat party on a Saturday night, then we should be prepared to be denied a job down the line. That is simply the fact of the digital era we live in.
In a society where social media is a major source of communication and information, it is important for users to consider what they are posting on the internet. In 2009, a Yale student was murdered and an online news paper called The New Haven Independent was at the front of the coverage. During this time social media, along with the controversies it can create, were still fairly new. Especially in the world of journalism, guidelines for dealing with social media had not yet been concretely defined. However the issue brought up in this case study is still prevalent.
The case study “The Facebook Conundrum” discusses issues regarding the accessibility of information via social media outlets. The case study asks this question: although Jessica Del Rocco knew Melissa Bailey was a reporter, would it be ethical for Bailey to use Del Rocco’s Facebook posts that Del Rocco only made accessible to her friends in her story about Raymond Clark, the suspect in the Annie Le murder and Del Rocco’s ex-boyfriend? When making her decision Bailey should weigh the following factors:
1.Del Rocco’s posts are only accessible to her Facebook friends.
2. Del Rocco accepted Bailey’s friend request and did not remove her even after she found out she was a reporter.
3. Bailey asked if Del Rocco would be willing to do an interview and she declined.
4. The Independent would keep her identity concealed.
The main question Bailey needs to ask is are the things a person posts on Facebook, that the person only allows their Facebook friends to see, allowed to be made public by one of their Facebook friends? I personally see both sides. On one hand it is common sense to never post anything on Facebook that you want to keep private because once it is on the Internet it is out there for anyone to see even if you do have high privacy settings on your social media outlets. You never know who is looking. Del Rocca knew Bailey was a reporter and yet she still kept her as a friend. However, Bailey asked for an interview and Del Rocca declined so I feel like using her posts in the article would be unethical because she clearly did not want to be involved with the story. Del Rocca’s posts about Clark were intended for just her Facebook friends, not for journalists to publish even if they weren’t going to publish her name.
Because Del Rocco accepted Bailey’s friend request (and didn’t delete her even after she identified herself as a journalist,) I don’t think Bailey really owed anything to Del Rocco in terms of just being conscientious of her, or others’, feelings. But Bailey did have to tiptoe the edge of what she thought was ethically sound, because her paper hadn’t yet established rules for what is appropriate ethically when dealing with sources and information from social media.
I personally think it was a classy move to not use the information she found on Del Rocco’s page, but I doubt many other papers would have been above this behavior.
The Facebook comments (from what we read) weren’t exactly riveting, and I don’t think it would have been worth it to include the commentary at the risk of violating a code of ethics.
Bailey did her job in 1. identifying herself as a reporter 2. asking for an interview (though she was denied) and 3. deciding what she could and could not use in the story based on Bass’ precedent.
Bass was lucky in that the information had been available to the entire network, not just “friends,” but Bailey had to figure out if these “friends” were really an intimate group Del Rocco felt comfortable sharing private information with or just a small percentage of the general public — things could get pretty dicey when dealing with social media etiquette, and as Bass said, he kind of lucked into being ethical. For that reason, I would avoid using this “private” information without explicit content, and it is probably best Bailey did as well.
I think it is Bailey’s responsibility to tell Del Rocco she is using her Facebook posts because technically they are not from a direct interview with Bailey, but I do think she can still use them. The thing is, because Facebook is a social media site but is “private” for only your friends to view your page, it makes it seem okay for Bailey to use the posts since they are friends on the site. Bailey even informed Del Rocco she was a reporter and yet Del Rocco still didn’t un-friend her.
Personally, I don’t post things on Facebook I wouldn’t want anyone in the public to see regardless if the post is only blocked to my friends. This is the internet and people can get around all those barriers and once it is up, it is there to stay.
Ethically, I think Bailey should inform Del Rocco she is using the posts, but I do not think she needs permission from her to use the posts since the posts she was making were publicly open (to her and 350 others) to read.
In the case study it even relays this: “As the BBC’s Alfred Hermida said about social networks: “This content is both private and public at the same time. It is private in the sense that it was intended for a specific audience of friends. But it is also publicly available online.”
These weren’t private commentary she had with a friend that was casually eavesdropped on, they were posted to Facebook and the Internet for Bailey to see. Bailey identified herself not attempting to go undercover like some reporters did according to a Virginia Tech student: “You have reporters that will create a Facebook identity just to get students’ contact information, or who will start an online memorial to get people posting for a story. It’s just inappropriate.”
I agree if Bailey had not identified herself to Del Rocco it would be unethical to use the posts, but she did. Now I think the main thing here if they wanted to get away with using the quotes and still stay close with their community and “do no harm” to the people they need to use the information without naming Del Rocco (while still informing Del Rocco they were going to be used.) This way they will be able to still use the quotes without getting to personal with names and would not be ethically wrong since there was no identification, considering Del Rocco did politely deny a interview.
I really went back and forth with the ethical issues in this case. Social media privacy is so relevant to our day and age that is does pose an interesting question. Are online posts private, semi-private, or public?
I believe that anything posted on the Internet is public. Once you put something out in cyberspace you lose total control. This presents Bass with many factors he has to determine when deciding to run Del Rocco’s posts.
First, Bass must keep in mind that the Independent is a local newspaper reporting a local story (even though the story went national). This makes the newspaper more sensitive to the people its covering. As Bailey said, “We need to build relationships and have them trust us.” The newspaper doesn’t want to hurt anyone, especially in the same town.
Secondly, Bass has to look at the way Del Rocco’s posts were obtained. Bailey friend requested Del Rocco and Del Rocco accepted. Therefore, Del Rocco gave Bailey access to everything she posts. Bailey also messaged Del Rocco informing her she was a reporter – and Del Rocco kept her as a friend. Del Rocco’s information is no longer private as soon as she accepted Bailey. Bailey didn’t pretend to be someone to gain information. Del Rocco knew who was reading her posts.
Bass also decided they would keep Del Rocco’s name private, even if sharing some of her posts. This sold it for me. I think it is ethical to post Del Rocco’s comments because her posting online makes it all public knowledge – of which she allowed Bailey access to. Keeping Del Rocco’s name private still stays with the newspapers policy to not name people (as they did with not naming the suspect right away), but they still stay ahead and get the full story out there.
2. What factors should Bass weigh to determine whether to run Del Rocco’s posts?
BBC’s Alfred Hermida said social media content is both “private and public at the same time.”
Going into that statement, you can’t help but scratch your head. How can something be private and public at the same time? In the social media era, it’s not only possible, but likely. While statements and “statuses” by people are hidden behind privacy walls and blank slates, when added as friends, these items become public to anyone wishing to see them.
However, people expect a certain level of privacy still on their social media walls, and as such, it’s still a dangerous territorial conundrum.
For Bass, he needed to really take a look at Del Rocco’s Facebook before using the items. Looking at her amount of friends and her social life would be a good start. If Del Rocco appeared to have lots of friends (500, 1000, 2000?) or seemed to be a very public socialite, it might be safe to assume the posts are open to the journalistic domain.
If she only had a handful of friends (50, 100, 300?) and seemed to be a social turtle, perhaps the posts would have been far less easily used, because her Facebook would appear to be a much more private setting.
Bass took an excellent approach by deciding if they were to run her works, he would “shield” Del Rocco, hiding her identity and attempting to keep her privacy intact. Bass know, however, that it was still possible to violate an anonymous source’s privacy.
This is quite the conundrum. While I do think anything on the internet is public knowledge, as a reporter there is a line that needs to be drawn. The Independent prides itself on being a local publication and protecting it’s people. With that said, I don’t think Bass should run the posts. Yes, Del Rocco accepted the friend request. However, she also declined to be interviewed suggesting she did not want to be involved. With respect to that, I don’t think it would be right to run the posts.
The Independent also was noted for its accurate reporting throughout this investigation. This may seem unlikely but there is always a chance that Del Rocco wasn’t really who she appeared to be on her Facebook page. If this was the case, that could really tarnish The Independent’s credibility.
If Del Rocco had agreed to be interviewed, that would have made for great information to run. She did not. Also, I don’t think her Facebook posts are that crucial to the story. And, if she had wanted the world to see them she would have made her Facebook page public. That was dumb of Del Rocco to accept someone she didn’t know on Facebook. In many cases, I’m sure the person would run the posts. But if I were the reporter, she would have gotten lucky. As a reporter and a person, I just don’t think running the posts is the right thing to do.
Wait, oops! This is Dani, lol.
Bailey’s responsibility should have immediately been to inform Del Rocco her role as a reporter. I feel leaving that information out, is equal to recording a conversation without the person being aware… It’s unethical.
Would it have made a difference in adding her as a friend and being able to obtain the information that she posted? Maybe, but the fact is even when she became aware of Bailey being a reporter and she did not follow through to support her decision of denying an interview by deleting her as a friend, she lost her right to deny Bailey the privileged to view her post, comments, etc.
After not being deleted as a friend, I believe Bailey does not have any reponsibility to ask Del Rocco for permission of the use posts in connection to the suspect, her-ex boyfriend. I do believe it is Bailey’s responsibility to inform Del Rocco her intentions with the posts, and how she plans to protect her identity.
I believe people are naive about the internet. It doesn’t matter how much you stress your information to be private, Nothing is off limits on the internet.
Bailey’s responsibility should have immediately been to inform Del Rocco her role as a reporter. I feel leaving that information out, is equal to recording a conversation without the person being aware… It’s unethical.
Would it have made a difference in adding her as a friend and being able to obtain the information that she posted? Maybe, but the fact is even when she became aware of Bailey being a reporter and she did not follow through to support her decision of denying an interview by deleting her as a friend, she lost her right to deny Bailey the privileged to view her post, comments, etc.
After not being deleted as a friend, I believe Bailey does not have any reponsibility to ask Del Rocco for permission of the use posts in connection to the suspect, her-ex boyfriend. I do believe it is Bailey’s responsibility to inform Del Rocco her intentions with the posts, and how she plans to protect her identity.
I believe people are naive about the internet. It doesn’t matter how much you stress your information to be private, Nothing is off limits on the internet.
This case really does have a lot of grey area, it is easy to see why Bailey and Bass struggled with what to do with the information. While I believe Bailey did the right thing in letting Del Rocco know she was a reporter writing about Raymond Clark, I believe she should have notified her sooner…upon adding Del Rocco as a friend.
I think that people are sometimes too comfortable disclosing their personal information on the internet, particularly on facebook. It is also important to note that it is common for people have hundreds or thousands of friends on facebook…of course these aren’t all “friends” in the traditional sense of the word, but also acquaintances, coworkers and even friends of friends sometimes. I think that it is for this reason that people sometimes don’t even realize that they are really widening their circle of trust on a public, highly accessible forum.
There is, with facebook, also this sort of “myth” of privacy. As Siobhan Butterworth, reader’s editor of the Guardian puts it in the case study: “Privacy is about intrusion rather than secrecy and the question is whether you have a reasonable expectation that something is private, rather than whether you have done or said something in public.” This really rings true for facebook, because as Alfred Hermida mentioned in the study, the information is private in that it is only being shared with a select audience, but it is also publicly available on the internet.
Bailey’s obligations to Del Rocco certainly include identifying herself as a journalist, but even though she was accepted as a friend and not even removed after identifying herself, I believe that Bailey should ask Del Rocco before publishing any facebook material in an article. Publishing things that have been said by another person without their permission to do so in any case simply feels unethical. Facebook materials haven’t been obtained through an interview per-se, but they are shared with some sort of audience. However, I doubt Del Rocco intended her words on facebook to be shared with the public masses.
It says in the story “Through Facebook, Bailey sent Del Rocco a message identifying herself as a reporter and asked if she was willing to be interviewed.” But Del Rocco said no to the interview. Even though Del Rocco didn’t unfriend/block Bailey after she revealed she was a reporter, anything that Del Rocco posted that was not marked “public” should not be fodder for Bailey’s writing. That’s my two cents, your exchange rate may vary.
I really enjoyed reading about this specific case, since it is very relevant to the current ethical issues that face journalists today. Throughout the article, I felt the New Haven Independent seemed to keep ethics and honesty at the forefront of their writing. This not only solidified them as a dependable news source, but fostered a respect for their reporting. It was interesting to see the ethical struggle that the Independent went through in order to figure out if they should use Del Rocco’s posts in their stories.
Personally, I do not think that the posts should have been used in the stories. Yes, Bailey did inform Del Rocco that she was a reporter when she asked for an interview. However, when Bass is considering what factors he should weigh when considering if he should use her posts in stories. He should consider how it could affect her personal life and reputation. He should also consider asking her permission to use the posts. Bass should also take into consideration the likelihood of her ex-boyfriend coming after her, if he chooses to publish her posts on facebook.
These are all major considerations that he should take into account. However, there is no black or white answer. This is a grey matter that has no straight forward ethical solution.