Common sense works better than strict rules in guiding journalists’ use of social media.
I encourage people concerned about journalism ethics in social networks to read Leah Betancourt‘s Mashable post How Social Media is Radically Changing the Newsroom (the headline is overbroad; the post is well-focused on journalism ethics).
Betancourt passes along some helpful suggestions for making good ethical decisions in the use of social media, primarily from Kelly McBride of Poynter and Mark Briggs of Serra Media, two of the best sources you could consult on the topic.
You may recall how critical several bloggers, including me, were of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times in their guidance on using social media. Journalists will get better advice from Betancourt, McBride and Briggs. I hope top editors at the Journal and Times are among those reading Betancourt’s post. She makes these central points:
- “Journalists always represent their news organizations.”
- “Critics, sources and friending: Use good judgment.”
- “Verify & confirm.”
- “New tools, familiar rules.” (This is how I start my American Press Institute ethics seminars, Upholding and Updating Ethical Standards, by noting that the principles of journalism ethics haven’t changed, just the circumstances in which we apply them.)
The post closes with four sound pieces of advice from McBride (with whom I collaborated on an earlier series of API ethics seminars):
1. Use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook because familiarity with the tools is important.
2. Always be mindful that you represent more than just yourself. Even if you are an individual journalist, the stakes are higher than with other professions.
3. Presume your tweets, status updates or other content on these sites will go further in terms of reach than you intend for it to go.
4. Ask your boss to follow you on Twitter because it’s a good accountability measure.
I’ll add that her fourth point is good on a second level, because way too many newsroom bosses aren’t using Twitter, and this might prod a boss to start using it.
Betancourt’s post mentions and links to the section of the Roanoke Times News Standards and Policies dealing with social social networking tools. The Times has been a leader in digital journalism and for the most part, this policy provides better guidance than the Journal’s policy. Several of the key statements reflect an understanding of how social networks intersect with journalism:
- “Be transparent with the audience as well as sources.”
- “Making connections is good.”
- “Ensure informed consent.”
But some of the standards are more restrictive than I think is wise. For instance, one point says:
Do not publish material collected for a story but which was not published in the newspaper or on roanoke.com. This includes photographs, quotations, information about how a story was reported or any other form of outtake. The newspaper holds the copyright to this material and is under no obligation to defend you if questions or a claim of libel arise.
Though journalists should be careful in these areas, this standard is misguided on multiple counts. The sharp prohibition shows too much of our traditional need to control and our sense that a story is a single product fixed in time. It shows no recognition of the fact that social media help us collaborate, continue and improve our stories. For instance, let’s say a reporter tweets a link to a story she has just written (as the policy encourages). Then a follower on Twitter or a friend on Facebook asks a good question that the reporter can answer but didn’t in the story. (This happens all the time, because reporters always gather more information than we have space for in the newspaper, and most online stories differ little from the print version.) The reporter can and should answer the question. The prohibition against discussing how a story was reported is old-media oqaqueness and control, rather than new-media transparency.
The threat to leave a reporter hanging if sued is not only heavy-handed but naïve. I’m not certain about this, but I can find no stories indicating that courts have settled or even addressed whether a newspaper would be liable for a reporter’s comments on a social network if the reporter is identified as representing that newspaper (as the Times explicitly tells staff members to do). More important, I am quite sure that any lawsuit resulting from a tweet by a reporter would include a newspaper as the defendant, because, even in these difficult times, the newspaper has the deeper pockets. And if you seek to be removed from the suit and leave your employee dangling in the wind, you might win in court, but that will be a costly win for your organization’s standing in the profession.
Still, most of the advice in the Times’ standards is sound. (I have invited Times Editor Carole Tarrant to comment here about the standards.)
I’m glad to see this discussion continuing. I encourage more discussion of these issues in the Journalism ethics in social networks handout that I use in my API seminars.
Steve, thanks for the opportunity to reply. Our news standards and policy — which includes this new section on social networking — was developed as a community document. http://www.roanoke.com/newsservices/wb/xp-59614
That is to say it was drafted by rank and file in the Roanoke Times newsroom. It started that way a while back and we go to committee when it needs updated. The editor doesn’t write the the guidelines but typically weighs in when there’s the rare disagreement or need for intepretation when a serious conflict arises.
This tradition was in place long before I got here four years ago, and I think it demonstrates one of the strengths of our newsroom. We take the idea of teamwork — and drawing on the peer knowledge in the room — seriously.
In the case of our news standards, a group of social networking fans — mostly reporters — last fall suggested we update the policy. After a few rounds of discussion, they produced a draft that, I think, demonstrated they actually use Facebook in their personal lives and understand its benefits as journalists.
While they debated the draft, I was rarely called in — and only then with good humor and the suggestion, “This is one for the boss to make the call.”
Given that background, I asked some of the folks involved in drafting the social networking guidelines what they thought about your post. Here are their very wise responses:
Matt Chittum, Data Delivery editor http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/datasphere/ :
Steve doesn’t know this from reading our standards, but all along we’ve acknowledged that this is a work in progress that we’ll have to adjust as we learn.
As far as answering a question about a story which comes through facebook, he’s right in the sense that we do take questions like that all the time through our telephones and email. But I don’t think that’s what we meant. What we meant, I believe, was not one-on-one communication like that, but some act that is similar to what we do in print and online everyday — the publication of news and photographs. Something like writing a story or a brief.
Now, that opens the door to a debate on whether communication on your facebook wall or a series of comments on a status is more like a telephone call or publishing a story.
But all of this goes to the larger point that we weren’t trying to write the bible on this stuff, but write a set of standards that helps us identify the potential issues and pitfalls in this new medium. That we are attempting to stay ahead — or at least caught up with — the medium, and that we’re flexible in that response is a tribute to us.
This is Yogi Bera-ish, but the point is not to think of everything, but to think of thinking of everything, while understanding that you’ll never really think of everything.
From Lindsey Nair, food reporter /blogger http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/fridgemagnet/ :
I just think the fact that we hadn’t anticipated a question-answer scenario on Facebook shows that we are working with a constantly changing new media. It seemed logical for us to protect our reporters and the newspaper in the policy because that’s what we always try to do. Perhaps we should play the chess game of anticipating the next move, and the next, and the next, but it is impossible to factor in all of those possibilies– that is why we have to rely on common sense and be adaptable.
If someone were to ask me a question about a story that wasn’t addressed in my story, my first instinct would probably be to answer it if it didn’t seem like anything touchy. If it did seem touchy, I’d want to consult an editor. And this, of course, is far different for a food writer than, say, a courts writer. And not that this changes things a ton, but wouldn’t that person need to be my “friend” on Facebook before they could even leave a question on my page? I think our policy reflects that sometimes it is just best to consult an editor.
From Neil Harvey, police reporter:
His argument makes sense in the context of the scenario he suggests, but I think there are many, many more instances in which posting story “outtakes” could cause problems.
But it’s good that he brought up a possibility we hadn’t foreseen. At the rate the field is changing, and considering the scope of the territory we’re talking about, that’s probably going to happen on an increasingly regular basis. We can occasionally modify these standards as necessary, right?
Also, I didn’t see the line about legal protection as a threat so much as a practical warning.
From Jordan Fifer, roanoke.com online intern:
And I partly agree with Steve as well, in that journalists should break traditional lines and be more personable. But I don’t see how it’s a problem. Just ask an editor. If you’d like to mention something that could’ve been included in the story but wasn’t – maybe just for lack of space, it’ll probably be fine.
As much as I like the idea of reporters having a “conversation” on Twitter and social media and talking about information they didn’t include — that’s why we have editors. Because (we hope) they have more experience in knowing what details are appropriate to report, whether in paper or via a tweet.
But I don’t think by any stretch we are being naive. We’re being cautious, with the ability to change. Good ethics are a flexible medium that have to adapt to the situation.
LikeLike
Thanks to Carole and her staff for a thoughtful response. This underscores my initial impression that Roanoke’s policy is far better informed and aware of how social networking works than the Wall Street Journal approach.
I should clarify, though, that you should regard a conversation on Facebook as public. And if someone asks you a question on Twitter, your response there certainly is public. And I do feel you should answer those questions, continuing the discussion of the story and providing more transparency to the process. I suspect and hope the Roanoke policy will be updated to allow and encourate this kind of discussion. Please send me a link when you update and I’ll take note. Again, thanks.
LikeLike
[…] A more thoughtful approach to ethics in social media (about the Roanoke Times ethics policy) […]
LikeLike
[…] (Andrew Nystrom provided a pretty good defense in the comments) and praised the policies of the Roanoke Times and NPR. Those posts usually attracted brief bursts of attention, with the Washington Post critique […]
LikeLike
[…] social media more sensibly than either the Post or the Journal. (I similarly praised the Roanoke Times earlier for a more thoughtful […]
LikeLike
[…] I have noted before that Carole’s staff has developed a thoughtful social media policy. For editors considering a […]
LikeLike
[…] and community engagement advocate Steve Buttry argues against blanket prohibitions in social media policies, saying such phrasing reflects […]
LikeLike
[…] guidelines. I have praised the Australian Broadcasting Corp., NPR, the New York Times and the Roanoke Times (OK, that one mixed in a little criticism, but I even liked how they responded to it). And now, the […]
LikeLike
[…] on the newsroom social media policies of the Guardian, NPR, Los Angeles Times, Roanoke Times, New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street […]
LikeLike
[…] I blog frequently about journalism issues, commenting on leading journalism organizations such as the Times (LA as well as NY), Post and Journal. So, when their social media policies became public, I commented on all of them. And I praised NPR‘s and the Guardian‘s social media policies, too (and a couple years later, I commented on social media guidance from the AP and ASNE). While much of my focus goes on the big players in journalism, I also commented on the social media policy of the Roanoke Times. […]
LikeLike