Comments on: Ethics of Online Journalism http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ethics-of-online-journalism Ideas, Development, Data and Design Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:32:03 +0000 hourly 1 By: theresac http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1423 theresac Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:15:47 +0000 http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/#comment-1423 @jongos <a href="http:\/\/www.citmedialaw.org\/blog\/2009\/first-amendment-protects-techcrunchs-publication-some-hacked-twitter-documents" target="_blank">Here's an interesting legal analysis</a> . Well worth reading! Essentially, TechCrunch could be on the line for three things: 1) publishing confidential company info/ trade secrets, 2) invaison of privacy, 3) reciept of stolen property. However, each of these are subject to limitaitons under the first admendment. @jongos Here's an interesting legal analysis . Well worth reading!

Essentially, TechCrunch could be on the line for three things: 1) publishing confidential company info/ trade secrets, 2) invaison of privacy, 3) reciept of stolen property. However, each of these are subject to limitaitons under the first admendment.

]]> By: theresac http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1411 theresac Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:20:49 +0000 http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/#comment-1411 Let's be clear about something here. TechCrunch's authors may or may not consider themselves journalists, but journalism isn't what pays the bills. Page views pay the bills. One of the things that separates journalists from (some) bloggers is the line the between editorial offices and advertising offices. Arrington's notorious for his willingness to publish just about anything. That's why his audience is so large. That's why whomever stole the information sent it to him. Is he complicit in a crime? Probably not. Arrington's many things, but stupid is not one of them. He's very clear that he checked with TechCrunch's lawyers deciding to share the information. Is publishing the information unethical? Well, let's wait and see what he publishes. If it's gossipy fluff like today's Twitter TV piece, it's a pretty minor infraction. If it's information that's damaging to Twitter and their future plans to monetize the service, I'd say the ethical considerations are much larger. Either way, $$ rolls in for TechCrunch. Let's be clear about something here. TechCrunch's authors may or may not consider themselves journalists, but journalism isn't what pays the bills. Page views pay the bills. One of the things that separates journalists from (some) bloggers is the line the between editorial offices and advertising offices.

Arrington's notorious for his willingness to publish just about anything. That's why his audience is so large. That's why whomever stole the information sent it to him.

Is he complicit in a crime? Probably not. Arrington's many things, but stupid is not one of them. He's very clear that he checked with TechCrunch's lawyers deciding to share the information.

Is publishing the information unethical? Well, let's wait and see what he publishes. If it's gossipy fluff like today's Twitter TV piece, it's a pretty minor infraction. If it's information that's damaging to Twitter and their future plans to monetize the service, I'd say the ethical considerations are much larger.

Either way, $$ rolls in for TechCrunch.

]]> By: jongos http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1412 jongos Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:57:32 +0000 http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/#comment-1412 @inari @theresa I'm by no means saying TC 'intentionally' paid for, received or stole this stuff. I probablly didn't explain my point, well enough, but I'm suggesting that by participating in something that we know was a crime would that be enough to cause lawful suspicion or an investigation. It's like if your friend steals a car, gives you a ride and admits the crime to you. You could be charged if you then tried to sell that car with him, or even if you just kept your mouth shut. At least in the U.S. where TC is based. I mean it's apple and oranges but where's the line with stolen intellectual property @inari @theresa I'm by no means saying TC 'intentionally' paid for, received or stole this stuff. I probablly didn't explain my point, well enough, but I'm suggesting that by participating in something that we know was a crime would that be enough to cause lawful suspicion or an investigation. It's like if your friend steals a car, gives you a ride and admits the crime to you. You could be charged if you then tried to sell that car with him, or even if you just kept your mouth shut. At least in the U.S. where TC is based. I mean it's apple and oranges but where's the line with stolen intellectual property

]]> By: inarimedia http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1410 inarimedia Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:49:32 +0000 http://appfrica.net/blog/2009/07/15/ethics-of-online-journalism/#comment-1410 It comes down entirely to whether the original owners of the information are able to convince law enforcement to bring charges against TechCrunch. That in turn depends on whether TechCrunch is seen as aiding or benefiting from a crime.. Normally, leaks and information handed over by employees could be written off as normal news-gathering. However, in this instance, a crime was committed to obtain the information. If TechCrunch actually paid the hacker for the information, that places them in a tricky legal position, from my perspective. It comes down entirely to whether the original owners of the information are able to convince law enforcement to bring charges against TechCrunch. That in turn depends on whether TechCrunch is seen as aiding or benefiting from a crime..

Normally, leaks and information handed over by employees could be written off as normal news-gathering. However, in this instance, a crime was committed to obtain the information. If TechCrunch actually paid the hacker for the information, that places them in a tricky legal position, from my perspective.

]]>