Advertisement

Harvesting Social Media for Journalistic Purposes in the UK

The Balance Between Privacy Rights and Freedom of Expression
  • Bernhard Gross
Chapter

Abstract

Social media have been shown to have the potential to broaden the scope of public communication and public sphere processes. In repressive societies or contexts, they can function as an alternative public sphere challenging the mainstream; but it also allows citizens in open, democratic societies to participate more actively in these processes. At the same time, established mainstream media institutions retain a dominant position in the public sphere. This chapter explores the relationship between editorial policies, guidelines and regulations in the UK, with a special focus on the use of social media as sources in domestic local news coverage. These codes govern everyday journalistic practice and hence shape individual journalists’ behaviour in relation to sourcing. A tension arises out of the juxtapositioning of a journalist’s right to freedom of expression and an individual’s expectation of privacy.

Keywords

Social Medium Social Networking Site Public Sphere Privacy Setting Social Media User 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. BBC. (2015a). Editorial guidelines. Accessed May 3, 2016 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines
  2. BBC. (2015b). Editorial guidelines. Accessed May 3, 2016 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance
  3. Broersma, M., & Graham, T. (2013). Twitter as a new source. Journalism Practice, 7, 446–464. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2013.802481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broersma, M., Den Herder, B., & Schohaus, B. (2013). A question of power. Journalism Practice, 7, 388–395. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2013.802474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In European Convention on Human Rights, as Amended. Strasbourg cedex: ECHR.Google Scholar
  6. Curran, J. (1991). Rethinking the media as a public sphere. In P. Dahlgren & C. Sparks (Eds.), Communication and citizenship (pp. 267–284). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Editors’ Code of Practice Committee. (2015). Editors’ code of practice. IPSO. Accessed November 20, 2015 from https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html; Note: The 2015 Code is no longer available.
  8. Editors’ Code of Practice Committee. (2016). Editors’ code of practice. IPSO. Accessed May 3, 2016 from https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html
  9. European Commission. (2015). Special Eurobarometer 431: Data protection. Brussels: European Commission: Directorate-General for Communication.Google Scholar
  10. Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek and Time. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  11. Greenslade, R. (2015). Editors’ code revised to prevent gender bias and wayward headlines. Guardian.co.uk. Accessed May 2, 2016 from http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/dec/03/editors-code-revised-to-prevent-gender-bias-and-wayward-headlines
  12. Hermida, A., Lewis, S. C., & Zamith, R. (2014). Sourcing the Arab spring: A case study of Andy Carvin’s sources on twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 479–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HM Government. (1998). Human rights act. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  14. IPSO. (2015a). 04459–15 Rainford v Mirror.co.uk . IPSO. Accessed May 3, 2016 from https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPSOrulings-detail.html?id=231
  15. IPSO. (2015b). 04426–15 Johnson v Dartmouth Chronicle. IPSO. Accessed May 3, 2016 from https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPSOrulings-detail.html?id=235
  16. Jarvis, J. (2010). Confusing *a* Public with *the* Public. Accessed May 3, 2016 from http://buzzmachine.com/2010/05/08/confusing-a-public-with-the-public
  17. O’Neill, K. (2015). See ‘giant rat’ spotted at Burger King drive-thru as disgusted customer demands money back. mirror.co.uk. Accessed May 3, 2016 from http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/see-giant-rat-spotted-burger-5972812
  18. Ofcom. (2015). Broadcasting Code. Ofcom. Accessed May 3, 2016 from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
  19. Swigger, N. (2013). The online citizen: Is social media changing citizens’ beliefs about democratic values? Political Behavior, 35, 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Watson, J., Lipford, H. R., & Besmer, A. (2015). Mapping user preference to privacy default settings. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations