In case you're wondering what I'm thinking...

Be careful what photo you put up on Facebook. If you die tomorrow, it might be how you’re remembered by the world.

Matt La Porte was one of the victims of Monday’s Virginia Tech shooting. I learned about his death on CNN.com. As names of thevictims were found out on Tuesday, CNN started compiling a list of those to be mourned.

Scrolling down the list, I saw a series of what looked like faculty portraits and the like, but then I came to a photo of Matt. Judging from the crappy quality (it looked like it was taken with a camera phone) and casual pose, I thought: “You’re kidding me. They used his Facebook photo.” A quick search on my favorite social-networking site later and it was confirmed; CNN actually felt a right-click on after a Facebook search is an adequate way to portray the dead in a make-shift obituary (the text of which, nonetheless, was all attributed to his MySpace page).*

This is not ok.

I don’t know anything about Matt. I don’t know if his family authorized this image, but I’m willing to bet that it’s not the photo they would have chose to represent the 20-year-old if given a choice. It’s not that this image of Matt is completely horrible or anything to be ashamed of, but I imagine that if Matt knew he was going to be gunned down the next day, and if he knew that in a race to beat thebloggers, CNN would forego any journalistic integrity that seeking out a family-sanctioned photo would have brought to their story, he would have posted a different image to his profile Sunday night.

This brings me to wonder: Should we all be creating “In Case of Death” photo albums on our Facebook sites … just in case?

Right now, my Facebook photo is a snapshot of me and friend drunkenly rolling around in bags of garbage on the Upper East Side. Gross I know, but funny as hell nonetheless to me and my friends–the intended viewers of that image. I am disgusted and disturbed by the thought that if I die in a way that draws any level of media attention, people will remember me as that stank-ass who rolls in bags of New York City trash (yeah, it was in bags, I do have some class). I guess at least I have an ear-to-ear grin on my face. Right?

But for real. I’m a tech journalist, the daughter of an MIS manager and an Internet junkie (like everyone else my age) with an avid interest in First Amendment law. I understand better than your average Facebook user that everything I put on the Internet has entered the public domain and may be used in a number of ways, not all of which would I necessarily give my blessing to. However, I do feel that CNN’s act of using a person’s social-networking profile image to portray Matt after his death was beyond tacky. It’s akin to releasing the names of the deceased in a televised press conference before telling the family in private. Or maybe a tabloid taking a quote out of context or misappropriating a paparazzi photo.

It must be understood that Matt had taken some measures to protect his privacy. His Facebook profile was not open to the public—at least to not those out of his network. Maybe it’s open to other VTech students, but I doubt CNN was able to just search his name and view his entire page. Obviously, Matt had his profile restricted for a reason. I think CNN should have been more
sensitive in this situation and searched out a different photo. Or—gasp—actually dial a phone and talk to him family. Hell, maybe even a Google image search would have yielded a more standard photo. The kid was only 20 years old, his senior portrait isn’t that old.

I suppose one could argue that Facebook does allow users to make their profiles unsearchable and they do offer the option of hiding your photo from the results page of a search, but most of us don’t want to go that far. If Erin Scottberg were a common name, I’d want people to be able to view my picture in a search so they could be sure they’re seeking out the right Erin Scottberg.

This situation has prompted me to consider making a personal digital media kit of sorts for myself. Businesses create digital media kits as a way to control a brand’s reputation—aren’t we our most important brand? A new line of tennis shoes, movies, magazine titles, they all have their own media kits. As a journalist, if I take an image from a product’s Web site that isn’t authorized for public use, I’m getting in trouble. Why should CNN be exempt? When you upload a photo onto Facebook, a disclaimer stating “I certify that I have the right to distribute these photos and that they do not violate the Terms of Use” pops up. Maybe Facebook should consider adding additional privacy measures so photo’s can’t be downloaded without a user’s permission either — similar to the “Order Prints” option that requiers those wanting to order prints of other’s photos to get permission from the owner.

It would be simply really. I’d create a Facebook album, throw some of my best mugs in there, maybe a candid or two, and make it public to all users. Then I’d write-up a quick spec sheet with my name (it’s Scottberg, not Scottsberg), birth date, a quick C.V. (as if I’m old enough to have a C.V.)—I’d even include e-mail addresses and phone numbers (maybe even screennames) of a few close friends and family I’ve arranged to comment on my death immediately following. I’d just
save it as a JPEG and use Facebook

’s “Upload Thinger” to zap that into the album too. Hell, I could get really morbid and keep an up-to-date will and parting words. I could have complete control of my post-mortem persona.

Again, I understand that what you post on the Internet is floating around in Cyberspace and Cyberspace is a wild and unruly place–and I like it that way. But I think there’s a certain code of conduct revolving around moral decency journalists need to respect, particular in sensitive situations like Monday’s tragedy. Social networking sites are all about projecting a certain image, and the image you create is going to depend on the audience it’s for. My Facebook profile would look a lot different if it was going to be how I bid adeau to the world–it’s even changed a bit since I’ve entered the work force and my colleagues have started “friending” me on Facebook. I can understand a blogger grabbing a Facebook photo to illustrate a post on their personal blog–but that’s someone sitting in their apartment, not one of the world’s most well-known news organizations.

On Wednesday, I Googled “Matt La Porte” and found a piece from Matt’s hometown paper, the New Jersey Star-Ledger, that did the young man justice. It talked about his goals, his life and really gave readers a picture of the man he was. They even interviewed real people and found a
“normal” photo. See, CNN? The information was out there, you just had to get away from the computer to collect it.

*note, since I first wrote this, CNN replaced Matt’s Facebook photo with the image from the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

When did it become acceptable for an accredited newsource to base a report almost solely on facts attributed to Facebook and MySpace, with some cellphone video footage thrown in for support?

I consider it insulting to the victims of Monday’s tragedy and the epitome of irresponsible reporting to use social networking sites as the sole source of information in a news story. I’m the lead researcher at a national magazine. If I used Wikipedia as backup for our stories, I’d be fired. No doubt about it. At least with Wikipedia, there are some checks and balances. That type of moderation does not exist on social networking sites (and nor should it).

If I were to die tomorrow, and a reporter somehow got into my Facebook profile, the world would see photos of me rolling through bags of garbage on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, doing kegstands while dressed as a flashy ’20s flapper and other less-than-flattering images that by no means make my person. I have posts on my wall saying things like “What’s up skank-zilla?” and absurdly long conversations about the joys of working in a mall and the downfall of Ms. Brittany Spears. I understand that this is the first event of this magnitude in which the Internet and social networking has such a vast role — this happened on a college campus, where Facebook began and is an integral part of student life. I also understand that people are using cyberspace to reach out, connect with people who feel their pain and grieve. I understand the need to talk about and share this news — it’s a completely healthy and natural reaction. However, network media should be doing more than re-reporting what is being said on social networking sites. Again, I am not downplaying the importance of these sites as a valid and major part of the bigger story — but it’s just one part of a larger picture that major news gathering organizations should feel the responsibility of providing their readers/viewers. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen much of the bigger picture — only countless screenshots of Facebook profiles flashing across my TV.

Today’s (Tuesday’s) media coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy has shown a reversal in the roles of bloggers and “professional” journalists. The “professionals” did little to no digging, delving or reporting on their own. Rather, they let citizen journalists cover the
story for them. While this results in plenty of material, it never goes as deep as I want it to because, well, most citizen journalists are simply going after the human interest aspect of the events, not the “nitty-gritty” news that was once expected in this situation (although many bloggers have gone much deeper than the stories I see on the evening news. They just don’t have Anderson Cooper’s budget to secure an exclusive interview with Cho Seung-Hui’s roommates.

Let me also point out that CNN paid VT student Jamal Albarghouti for exclusive rights to the footage he took on his Nokia N70 cellphone. Read about it here. CNN then limited other networks to only 10 seconds of the clip, according to the Chicago Tribune. That there is a prime example of the difference between citizen journalists and the “professionals”: the latter is supposed to be reporting to keep people informed, while the former is looking to document. (yes, I know newspapers and networks are a also business , but for argument’s sake, let us believe that news gathering organizations value informing the public equally with making a profit)

As I sat in my little cubical today, feeling a sense of anxiousness and helplessness about the events on the VT campus (a large portion of that anxiety I attribute to this being the first time I haven’t been near in newsroom during a major event), I relied on BoingBoing.net andChicagoTribune.com to supplement the news I was reading on outlets like CNN.com and MSNBC.com. By aggregating news from a plethora of sources, and including a wealth of opinions from all and opinions from all persuasions, I felt like I had a more accurate understanding of the unfolding events than the fluff being passed of as news on cable
TV.