“You have zero privacy already. Get over it.” – Larry Ellison, co-founder of software company Oracle and 15th on the Forbes rich list.

Social networking tool Twitter sparked a storm this week when a journalist posted live updates from a three year old’s funeral. Within the 140 character limit, the Rocky Mountain News reporter told his ‘followers’ every detail, reading, ‘coffin lowered into the ground’, ‘family members shovel earth into grave’ and ‘people are again sobbing’.

The child had died when a truck drove in to a Baskin Robbins ice cream store in Colorado, and the death was a hot topic in the local news. The reporter’s decision to ‘tweet’ the event has had people the ethics involved in the new world of social media. It seems nothing is sacred in a world where people post about the birth of their children live from a BlackBerry, and upload videos to YouTube and post blog entries of every event in their lives, mundane, dramatic and tragic including. There are no defined rules for etiquette and appropriate use of these new self-publishing mediums, but rules and laws are created by trial and error.

Twitter is used by friends and businesses alike, with most users having the tool running as they work or surf the internet to keep in touch. People share links to interesting articles they’ve read, what they’ve eaten for lunch, discuss politics and plan their social lives on the popular microblogging tool. Although this may sound incredibly trivial, businesses are now using Twitter for serious networking and the service has been used for breaking news - the recent China earthquakes were very quickly ‘Tweeted’ to the outside world by Twitter users in the region well ahead of the major news agencies. You can even follow Netregistry now for updates and news as we recently created a Twitter account to network with customers and build relationships.

The rabbi who officiated the service, David J. Zucker, thought the service professional and compassionate, taking no offence. "I don't see anything on this [Web site] that [the reporter] did is in any way offensive," he said. "The way I see it is that it's somebody sharing to a wider community [that was] interested and felt connected to this sad event." Readers took a different view, labeling the coverage ‘inappropriate’, ‘offensive’ and even ‘repulsive’. Professional media and bloggers alike were outraged.

The family of the deceased child had permitted reporters to be present at the funeral, and all the reporter did was report on the events. The journalist took notes of what he saw, doing his job, without inserting emotion or opinion. Only, instead of recording the observations in a notebook, he chose to publish them on the internet in real time. Despite the enormous controversy this provoked, only 54 people were following the journalist’s updates. The account was reserved for professional use and linked to the newspaper, with the only updates posted being journalistic notes.

If the funeral covered had been that of a public figure, it would be expected that it would be reported about in real time. Nobody questions their right to pore over every gory detail of a celebrity’s death and funeral proceedings, but that person had chosen to be in the public eye. A three year old child on the other hand, couldn’t voice his feelings well in life and had no say over the coverage of his death. At that age, his parents speak for him, and they had chosen to allow media to report on the funeral. If the so-called invasion of privacy was welcomed, no one directly affected by the event was offended.

If the parents or a family member had been posting live play-by-pay updates of the child’s funeral to the internet, I would be extremely uncomfortable. Reporting on live events immediately takes you away from the present moment. How would you feel if your father had posted live updates of your birth to the internet? Offended that he wasn’t completely absorbed in the moment or proud that you could see a record of the real-time excitement? It’s merely the modern equivalent of how my childhood birthdays were filmed on a VHS Camcorder.

The internet is now the tool of choice for sharing every detail of information about our lives. A friend of mine overseas recently posted news of her engagement via Facebook. First she uploaded pictures of the ring, then happy snaps of her engagement party, then copies of the couple’s professional Engagement Photos (this was news to me, I thought the professional photos only came at the actual wedding). If a friend had someone close to them pass away, they would share this information and details about the funeral via the internet – as a communication tool with those who are interested in the event.

The Rocky Mountain New’s journalist’s notes were not publicised with the intention of perverting the tragic death of a child, or showing a lack of sympathy to those who loved the child. Facts were stated via the internet – something that happens every day. If the issue behind critics objecting to the twittering is that the reporting showed a lack of respect for the child’s life, it’s nothing compared to the New Zealand adult industry magnate who filmed a woman giving birth as a scene in a pornographic film in 2002, approved by the High Court so long as images of the child were not shown. There is little difference between the funeral being covered in real time or being printed in the paper the next day.

Covering an actual death over the internet in real time would be a different story all together. Because this technology is new, the rules are still being defined. What is sad is that the child’s short life will be remembered by most for the uproar his funeral created, rather than his personality.

Share and Enjoy: