September 29, 2009
Washington Post guidelines cast social media as a minefield and that’s bad
The Post’s guidelines include a litany of “don’ts” that will discourage journalists from even trying to learn how to use social media to join growing civic conversations online.
The Washington Post’s new social media guidelines seem destined to send this message to the newsroom: Social media - Don’t go there.
The guidelines raise some legitimate issues on social media, including the fact that nothing is really private on the Web and joining political causes might compromise a journalist’s claim of neutrality. Still, the overall negative tone of the guidelines and its long litany of “don’ts” just about guarantees that many journalists will avoid social media even within the narrow confines that the Post editorial managers see fit to allow. The guidelines provide an excuse for journalists who want to avoid social media and will scare off many who would like to try out social platforms.
That’s too bad. Because journalists can add value to conversations in social and civic spaces on the Internet. To do so, they need to get into those conversations and learn how to be effective—not a small adjustments for traditional journalists who have come up on the one-way (and it’s “my way”) model of communication.
Here are some ideas for newsroom managers who want their staffs to embrace social media:
- Encourage small experiments, especially in learning the give and take of conversation online. Set parameters for tone and role play different scenarios to help journalists learn how to respond directly and conversationally.
- Distinguish between the personal and the professional while acknowledging the line is sometimes very broad and blurry. Share examples of journalists who do a good job with content and attitude while refraining from sniping or opinion that might undermine their credibility.
- Above all, deal in specifics, not abstraction. Coach around specific issues that come up. Move the discussion from the inevitable list of hypothetical things that could go wrong to the deails of what’s actually going on in social spaces and how to handle situations that might raise questions.
This sounds like a significant investment of time for busy newsrooms. So be it. Millions of people are taking the conversations into online social networks. They will be there whether the journalists come along or not.
Comments
Great post, Michele.
Traditional news orgs and journalists appear to live in fear that someone might discover that reporters are actually—gasp—human.
Attempting to pretend that you have no opinions or views is to pretend that you are not human. This is fundamentally not credible.
Furthermore, it’s painfully and obviously hypocritical for news organizations—which exist *because* of free speech—to require their employees to adhere to blanket prohibitions on free speech.
People are *always* trying to judge journalists, journalism, and news organizations. And yes, some sources may grant or deny reporters access based on those views. And yes, some people will always conflate an individual reporter’s views with what an entire organization thinks. (In fact, organizations don’t “think” anything. The “institutional voice” is a fragile ruse.)
The problem is, when you prohibit journalists from expressing their views publicly *even outside the news venue* then you guarantee that all those judgments will happen without direct input from the journalist.
That is, people will judge reporters and their work based strictly on the assessments and assumptions *of others*—which may be wildly incorrect, or deliberate attempts to sabotage or influence. Often this happens behind the reporter’s back.
Personally, I think when journos can speak for themselves, *as* themselves, they stand a fighting chance against whisper campaigns.
- Amy Gahran
By Amy Gahran, 09/29/09 at 1:09 pm
Good advice, Michele. But I would say to also encourage large experiments. And mostly, if you trust your journalists’ judgment to handle page-one stories, photos and graphics, shouldn’t you trust their judgment with social media?
My takes on the Washington Post guidelines: http://bit.ly/XW6LW & http://bit.ly/3ol6La
By Steve Buttry, 09/30/09 at 11:52 am
Thanks for the comments Amy and Steve. I agree, Amy, that transparency and authenticity are key. Steve, you are right about large experiments. It is urgent that news organizations undertake them quickly. My idea on small experiments was to let journalists dip a toe in the water and get a bit comfortable with social media before making big leaps. That has to happen quickly as well.
By Michele McLellan, 09/30/09 at 12:04 pm
I think that there are larger implications in this new social media policy to consider. I work in international media development, and use news media like WaPo as an example in training seminars to journalists around the world. I’ve been trying to promote, esp. in former Soviet countries, more openness through through social media. And WaPo comes along and essentially shoots that all down. This could have important ramifications in developing countries.
More thoughts on this at http://aimd.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/wapos-social-media-guidelines-bad-news-for-international-media-development
By Ben Colmery, 10/14/09 at 2:32 pm
Page 1 of 1 pages
Exploring innovation, transformation and leadership in a new ecosystem of news, by journalist and change advocate 
RSS Feed
