Social media tools (especially Facebook and Twitter) have found a niche in the practice of journalism.

But is this an example of technology moving faster than careful thought?

There are pitfalls in sending out a knee-jerk tweet or stepping into someone else’s Facebook network to cultivate sources on deadline.

Here are new guidelines issued by the Radio Television Digital News Association.

I’ve been asked a few times whether SPJ has updated its code of ethics to keep up with social media.

I’m not sure we need to. The ethical principles in the code, for the most part, don’t pertain only to one form of communication. Fairness, accuracy, context and other fundamentals certainly can apply to BlackBerry or cell-phone texters, too.

But my position isn’t immutable, and the rest of SPJ’s Ethics Committee has a wide range of views, which might lead to some degree of change. The committee will talk about this soon as part of a broad review of the code of ethics, which hasn’t changed in 14 years.

(I’m not sure about this reference in The Washington Times, which seems to suggest SPJ recently updated the code to address social media.)

Does the SPJ Code of Ethics need new language to guide journalists on the ethical use of social media as part of their work? Please tell us what you think.

-Andy Schotz, chairman, SPJ Ethics Committee

Thanks to NPR’s health blog, among others, for reporting on the latest thoroughly bad idea connected to social media and journalism.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/osteopaths_group_offer_gifts_to_journalists_for_follo.html

The American Osteopathic Association is giving a $10 gift card to those (i.e., journalists) who follow the organization on Twitter.

It’s not for me to comment on the AOA and the line that it crosses (that’s paying for access and attention, no matter how you try to spin it).

But any journalist who goes along with this needs to think a little harder about the relationship. You’re being paid to listen (in a new-world, new-media sense) to a source.

Maybe this doesn’t require additional comment. No journalist would agree to this. Right?