There is no doubt that there must be a line drawn with regard to journalists’ use of social networking sites. The need for ethics is clear. Where to draw the line however is not so clear. When constructing these ethics and rules for journalists to abide by, there are a number of issues that managers and editors should be considerate of. Viewing the process through a simple looking-glass would make the process a lot less complex. Being realistic, considerate and fair are vital in this process.

Kelly McBride is correct in her assessment that it is necessary for journalists to identify themselves as such when using social networking sites in a professional capacity. She also says that they should remain mindful that they will be regarded as representative of their newsroom or organization. What if they are not using social networking cites as representative of any news organization but rather as an individual? For instance, if HLN’s Robin Meade were to post negative comments about President Obama on her personal Facebook or Twitter page, she would probably be disciplined in some form because it would not reflect positively upon HLN. The fact that the page is her personal belonging and is not being used in a professional capacity would not matter because she is still HLN’s star Robin Meade. This is where the issue of fairness comes in. When journalists pursue their career path, later taking journalist positions in various forms, they do not do so with the expectation of giving up their right to their own personhood. Ethics should make a clear distinction between things done in a personal capacity and things done in a professional capacity. News organizations should only be concerned with the latter.

On the other hand, journalists should be realistic, making wise decisions and knowing where to draw the line if they are expecting the ethics by which they must abide to be realistic. For instance this was the product of not so wise decision making on the part of an ABC journalist. This story provides further justification for the creation of ethics and is an example of why journalists should be mindful and make good decisions. If journalists want privacy as individuals and do not want the lines between professionalism and personhood blurred, then they should not engage in blurring of the lines. They should keep them completely separate. Cheryl Rossi of the Vancouver Courier does this. If journalists do not, then they should be prepared to accept the consequences. The position of managers and editors should be to make those consequences very serious ones. Simple decisions like having more than one account that vary with regard to friends could help tremendously. An account for friends and an account for coworkers would be a great idea.

There is no magic theory that can solve the problem nor is there any one answer to the question. Ethics and rules should change as the times do but should maintain an element of realism. The bottom line is ethics and rules should only be applicable to networking done in a professional capacity. We cannot regulate how people feel, therefore it is both impossible and unnecessary to seek to regulate their personal expression of those feelings in a personal forum.