Oh the 2008 presidential election.... I'm not one for politics, most of the time anyway, because I don't feel I know enough about the facts to form an opinion that I'm willing to stand by relentlessly (like so many people are.) But, with all the drama (yes, I prefer to see it as drama) surrounding the candidates I've had a hard time staying out of it.
I recently received an email regarding Republican vice-president hopeful Sarah Palin, forwarded to me by my mother. It first caught my attention because it opened with the following statement:
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .
Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks. :)
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any websites, as
there are too many kooks out there . . .
Thanks,
Anne
When I mentioned the email to my dad, his first response was "give it a few days and it will be all over the news". Being naive, I told him that I doubted it and believed the email would stay in circulation but didn't think anyone would end up posting it anywhere. I suppose I thought the author's wishes would be respected.
Turns out I was way wrong. Crosscut News of Seattle reprinted the email with sites like Digg.com and Zimbio picking up the story. I guess what perplexes me is Crosscut is claiming they reprinted the email in its entirety yet they clearly leave out the introduction from Anne asking that the email doesn't make it on the web.
Obviously several things could have happened here... For one, Anne may have granted the website permission to post the email sans the introduction. However, I think its more likely the email was picked up and posted without the introduction and without permission.
Either way, the story is out. I suppose the author knew deep down her words would not stay secret for long. It would be unrealistic to expect such a substantial commentary on Palin to circulate the web (though through private email) and be completely ignored by the media. However, it further demonstrates that in the new age of the internet, nothing is private. It is becoming more and more difficult to keep your private life seperate from your public. I think Ashley makes a good point of this dilemma in her recent blogpost.
What do you think? Do you think that Crosscut picked up the email and posted it with permission? If not, do you still think the decision to post the article, claiming it was in entirety, is ethical? Unethical? And, what are your opinions on privacy and the internet? Should personal information via Facebook and Myspace pages be available? Where do we draw the line?
2 comments:
Interesting how your article and the idea behind it easily correlates to our idea of 'gossip' in general. The old saying "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" along with the ideology that you should always be aware that anything that you say to someone else could be known by everyone tomorrow. Cool post!cr
You bring up some interesting issues regarding privacy online. We discussed the issues surrounding Facebook, etc. in class, but unfortunately these are public domain because we sign away any rights of privacy when we create our accounts.
E-mail, however, is supposed to be a private forum for discussion and interaction. Therefore, a story that originated in an e-mail would be a private document and most likely protected by whatever web host Anne uses. Unless she signed off on its publishing, she can sue, correct? Although, her career is probably ruined already...
Post a Comment