I found this article on the Post and I wanted to share because I think it goes to the heart of what this class is all about. It's called Print-Era Shackles for a Twitter World and is written by the Post's ombudsman, Andrew Alexander. He certainly poses some interesting questions and brings up both sides of the argument.
The basic jist is: the Post doesn't want their reporters on social network sites because they feel it compromises their journalistic credibility and neutrality.
Once again, I think this is a gray area and should be decided on a situational basis. Any thoughts??
NB C-notes
-
From the WaPo:
NEW YORK -- The Society of Professional Journalists condemned NBC News for
practicing "checkbook journalism" by chartering a jet that carrie...
14 years ago
7 comments:
Interesting issues that are arising with the social media boom. As usual, we are heading into uncharted waters. However, I agree with Dan Gillmor from ASU. Having prominent media staff not tuned into to social media like Twitter and Facebook can be harmful to a news outlet. I personally get a little concerned when a prominent person or organization has little or no internet presence.
I think that, although people will always idealize objectivity, the reality is that people do have opinions. And like any other visible person (such as a CEO or politician), news media employees need to be especially conscientious about what image they project to the world - and that world is online!
Having a policy put out there is a good idea because it at least reminds people that they need to be very aware of their online presence and behave as ethically as possible at all times (the crack smoking rookie reporter comes to mind!)
This is definitely an area of grey.
I think on one hand, the need to maintain an image of objectivity amongst a newspaper staff in the face of the public eye is certainly important. But on the other, I think the complete prohibition of social networking sites is a bit of an extreme.
When it comes to simply private Facebook or Twitter accounts, why not reform the policy and make it so they stay that way - private? I see no harm if a journalist has a Facebook which is private and only visible by his friends; the people he knows. The article is downright incorrect in that regard - everyone CAN'T gain access to those things if he keeps them under lock and key and within the circle of the people he or she knows.
On the other hand, if they want a public social networking account, then I'd say make it official and do it through the newspaper. Have separate accounts specifically for your role as a public figure. Maintain objectivity and responsible displays of information.
I agree Michael. I think journalists are entitled to impulsively voice their opinions to whoever they choose on Facebook, Twitter, etc via privacy settings. However both journalists and the general population should take discretion when disseminating information to the public.
I know some government organizations have blocked Facebook and Twitter in Ontario, due to a strict employee code of conduct. However the agency I work at encourages us to use our social media accounts.
I think that objectivity in journalism ,is of course part of it's very core.However separating involvement in social networking from impartial reporting doesn't have to be impossible.
There are many other fields that could have , potential conflicts of interest facing them. If a journalist uses discretion in posting information,and does not project any partial opinions ,then why can't they be part of a media, that is so vital in today's world?
Keeping them from being inclusive in every aspect of the social media ,suffocates their ability to have all venues available to them for their growth as journalists.
I agree with Valerie, restricting a reporter's access to all forms of media can be detrimental in this age of online information. And opinions are often a valuable part of writing.
The problem with some of the social networking is that the short responses and quick hits don't allow for informed explanations. The creator comes off as biased and super-opinionated when in reality, they are expressing a valuable insight.
Journalists need to understand that everything they write is judged by the public and act accordingly.
We spend so much time online that it makes no sense to prohibit social media; as it is imperative to the future of journalism.
Currently, I work in PR. And I spend the same amount of time reading blogs, as newspapers. In addition to contacting news outlets, I also pitch major bloggers to leverage product launches, events, etc. I also find blogs helpful for qualitative research to create PR plans.
Anyway back to the subject of ethical practices with social media. Ultimately, it is common sense to take discretion when blogging or disseminating any information to the public in general because we are always being judged.And it is important to be sensitive, to not just our audience, but the general public. The truth is that it takes years to build your reputation and seconds to destroy it.
Post a Comment