Reputation Management on the Web
Is this an issue or a non-issue?
Clearly reputation management on the Web is an issue for those whose reputations have been sullied by online materials. But, as Jack Shafer writes in his two-part Slate.com article (1, 2), there are a multitude of ways people can improve their online images, and lamenting to the offending publication is not one of them.
As editor Clark Hoyt discusses in his New York Times editorial, gripes about ruined reputations are a daily problem for online publications. But how, he muses, are online editors to deal with this issue? Does the news organization have an ethical obligation to "re-write history," as Clark says -- to change existing articles when new information has been discovered, or to drive more complete follow-ups to the top of the Google search rankings?
I tend to agree with Shafer, who says "certainly not."
I do think that the New York Times would do well to at least put an editor's amendment at the top of a story whose alleged facts have changed significantly over time (perhaps linking to the most recent developments), but to change the actual article would be an ethical dilemma in and of itself. As Hoyt says, extensive amendments would also take up huge amounts of time and resources that the Times doesn't have. Thus, apart from the aforementioned editor's note idea, it is up to the person in question to implement their own damage control.
Damage control -- or, positive PR -- is a very realistic and practical option for those who think their reputations have been unfairly degraded. As Shafer recommended, the individual who cries reputation foul would be better off spending his time remedying the situation himself -- by registering a domain name and promoting it to prominence on the Google search algorithm, and by generating positive press on the internet.
This proposed solution follows in the American trends of "adversarial systems" and individualism in general. In terms of reputation, the battle becomes "me vs. them" (the offending papers), and whichever side puts more resources into the battle should come out on top. That means if the tarnished party works harder on their own site, it could become #1 on the Google rankings and displace the story in question. Rather than whine to the newspaper, it's in the person's best interest to simply take some initiative and win the reputation battle himself.
What are other pressing ethical issues in online journalism?
As OJR says, The ethics of online journalism are, ultimately, no different than the ethics of journalism." There are, however, a few additional points to be made, as outlined extensively by Poynter's editable Online Ethics wiki.
The following are some online-specific ethical concerns from the aforementioned wiki:
- "Limited resources, the novelty of online publishing or a lack of protocols cannot become an excuse for shoddy work or causing harm."
- Writers should disclose ownership of personal blogs.
- Acknowledge the risks of unedited journalism.
- Differentiate news from advertisement content.
- Speed should not compromise accuracy or truth.
With those issues in mind, the online journalist can work toward becoming a more righteous documentarian.
Farewell, perhaps you'll see me again one day, in a different time and place.
I'ts been real.
Signing off.
