The Washington Post clamps down on perceived journalistic "bias" in social media postings:
The new guidelines address the “perception problem...” A key section reads:
“When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.”
Another section reads: “What you do on social networks should be presumed to be publicly available to anyone, even if you have created a private account. It is possible to use privacy controls online to limit access to sensitive information. But such controls are only a deterrent, not an absolute insulator. Reality is simple: If you don’t want something to be found online, don’t put it there.”
It continues: “Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG
2 comments:
Garry,
Thank you for posting this piece. It is quite thought provoking for me.
While the Washington Post's guidelines don't surprise me (and my legal mind certainly understands the risk aversion behind the guidelines), it is just another example of old school versus new era in which old school has yet to adapt to new era.
Having just attended a conference about social media for business (#nmatl), the timing of this post floating through my stream on Twitter is uncanny.
Of particular interest to me in your post is the section of the Post's guidelines that reads:
“Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”
This is antithetical to where we're headed as a society. Transparency is the future, not opacity. EVERYONE has leanings in different directions on all of these topics - journalists, readers and even the authors of social media guidelines such as these. We're all biased and partial in some form. We're all human.
So what does the Post say to its journalists? Act like you're not human. Hide the fact that you have personal views so that you can pretend your reporting is completely unbiased. Stepford Wives meet Washington Post journalists.
What differentiates one journalist from another? Personality, writing style, perspective, expressing who they are in the way they write about topics of interest.
Having unique, engaging journalists who aren't afraid to express their humanity is the only hope for news organizations in the future. Why would I choose to read bland fact reporting from the Post when I can read such data faster on Twitter AND with a variety of views provoking me to consider multiple perspectives and form my own opinions.
What differentiates the Washington Post from other old school news agencies? Not much.
These new social media guidelines confirm that they just don't get it. They're perpetuating the long tradition of wearing masks amidst a grass roots movement to rid ourselves of masks.
With the abundance of online media so freely expressed by people who are increasingly transparent in their views, old school media organizations clinging to old school ways are fast becoming relics in this new age.
Having journalists with diverse personal views, allowing (even ENCOURAGING) them to express their personal views in their personal lives via social media - humanizes them and promotes dialogue. It encourages interaction. It connects readers with journalists as human beings, not robotic pawns of an ancient institution.
And if (as the Post might fear) a journalist's biases are hateful and malicious (promoting exclusion rather than inclusion of open dialogue and diversity of thought) then such views shared in the public domain provide a service to the Post, revealing journalists that the Post probably doesn't want to keep on staff anyway.
These guidelines isolate Post journalists from the rapidly growing online community that is the future. And this expanding community seeks interaction and dialogue - nothing less than honest, authentic and transparent reporting. We want humans who relate to us as humans.
The Post is dehumanizing their journalists with this move, making them cogs in the machine - a machine that will soon be obsolete if not retooled.
Allison - thanks for these very well thought-out comments.
I checked out your website at http://www.allisonsumpter.com/ - your discussion of domestic violence is a compelling and touching one. Hopefully some of our readers will take a look, too.
GJW
Post a Comment