He spoke to us about the use of social networking and how to exploit it for journalistic purposes.

He asked his twitter followers for a brief summary of social media and Howard Rheingold described it as:

 ”Many to many media that gain value as more people participate, and which enabled people to connect with each other.”

I like this definition and it is an interesting idea. However, after the lecture a fellow student asked whether there is a danger that we are making ourselves too open on the internet and our lives are becoming up for grabs for anyone who wishes to follow us. That got me thinking, I am on facebook, twitter, have a blog, to name some of the places where someone can follow my online presence.

I don’t openly share details of my private life- not that I think anyone would be that interested- but I have been thinking about where we draw the line, how much social networking is too much? If  journalists (and other professionals) are making their lives open and available, does this add or subtract to what we have to say when reporting? On one hand, it dispells the image of the hardened hack but on the other, if people read what we ate for breakfast or what film we watched last night does it challenge our authority on the real subjects? Do people become so bored of hearing our opinions that they switch off when we actually have something of value to impart to them?

I like social media, I want to see it grow and I think it has great potential to be used as a tool for journalism but I do think we should address the questions I have posed.