< Previous page

All true enough. But I have to wonder, as one who has parented two daughters through teenagehood, whether young people give due consideration to the consequences or, as Meyer points out, the permanence of their online soul-baring. It's a paradox. They are keeping diaries of their innermost feelings, but they're posting them for all to see.

A good question that was raised to me is: What's the age cutoff for publishing children's blogs? 13? 18? 16? -- Becky Berkley's age. Editor Williams says that's a judgment call that a newspaper makes on a case-by-case basis, just as we do whenever we interview minors for a story. How aware is the young person of the effect of publication? There was every indication from Becky's blog that she was an Internet sophisticate who was conscious of the public nature of her posting.

One difference, though, is that in interviewing minors, a paper has their understanding, or that of their parents, that they are being interviewed for publication. Newspaper publishing of Internet postings is done without anyone's permission.

One of my callers asserted that, in publishing a photo of Becky Berkley's blog page, we steered more readers to her Web site. After Paul Berkley's death, many went to her site and left messages -- some offering consolation, others suggesting she had a role in her father's death, some viciously criticizing her personal life.

The Berkley blogs yielded useful information that helped readers better understand the strange relationships that led to this family tragedy. But we didn't need to know about French kisses or even, I submit, Becky's thoughts about being visited by an angel sent down by her father in Heaven.

Online communication is a powerful new tool for reporting, giving newspapers access to pools of information they never had before. But there's also the potential for broader and unseen consequences. Having access to more information imposes an even greater responsibility on a newspaper to use it with care.

< Previous page