I can’t keep blogging every time a major newspaper releases fear-driven social media guidelines. But once again, I can’t resist.
The Los Angeles Times is the latest major news organization to apparently tell its staff to beware the dangers of social media. I don’t have time to critique this in the same detail that I did the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post guidelines.
But I count 19 words of mild general encouragement to use social media and more than 600 words of thou-shalt-nots and warnings of the terrors lurking below the water, including subpoenas.
Without looking, I knew that these policies were written by people who don’t use social media much. But I looked. I couldn’t find Editor Russ Stanton, who released the guidelines on either Twitter (tried searching for Russ, Russell and “Rstanton”) or Facebook (several Russ Stantons there, but none that I could find identifying themselves with the Los Angeles Times in their public profiles).
At first, I couldn’t find Assistant Managing Editor Henry Fuhrmann, who also signed the guidelines, on Twitter. So I tweeted that neither of them used Twitter. Then Chris Krewson tweeted that Andrew Nystrom might have had some input and he’s a regular Twitter user. I messaged Nystrom and he pointed out that Fuhrmann tweets as hfuhrmann (at the time he listed his name that way in his profile, but he spelled it out after I pointed that out to Nystrom). Fuhrmann’s profile identifies him as overseeing the Times copy desk. He has tweeted only 71 times (three this month, four in October), so I think it’s fair to say he’s not a very active Twitter user. Fuhrmann has 491 Facebook friends, so I’ll guess he’s more active there.
Fuhrmann has more social media experience than some editors who have developed misguided policies. But I feel safe in saying that we again have inexperienced, fearful editors telling staffs to be very afraid of social media.
Nystrom tells me in an email (responding to my mocking of the subpoena fear), “our legal folks do take the potential implications of social media very seriously.” I should note that I misread this fear in one of my mocking tweets, after reading a story about the policy and before I had read the full policy. Still, throwing in subpoenas does add to the “reefer madness” tone of the whole policy. I have been subpoenaed frivolously, long before social media were part of journalism, so I don’t take subpoenas lightly. Journalists should always be careful and social media don’t change that.
The Times policy warns: “Your interactions could be subject to a third-party subpoena. The social media network has access to and control over everything you have disclosed to or on that site. For instance, any information might be turned over to law enforcement without your consent or even your knowledge.” Yes, and so could information you publish on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. With the exception of personal messages, social media content is public anyway. Some good judgment in use of personal messages is advisable. But so is some perspective.
Some of the issues raised are valid and some of the advice is good. But the tone of fear, the failure to give more than passing lip service to the importance of social media and the unwillingness to trust journalists’ judgment reflect the same cluelessness we saw from the Journal and the Post.
For wise policies in social media, check out NPR or the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
As I’ve said before, newsrooms need lots of conversations about the wise use of social media. And those conversations should stress the opportunities and the value of social media. But first we need more editors to learn about the opportunities and the value.
In a direct Twitter message, Andrew Nystrom correctly pointed out that several LA Times staffers are using social media effectively: “Have you seen our @latimescitydesk ? Editor Nita groks social, as do many of our beat reporters: @anblanx @lacrimes @lajourno @latimesmuskal.” Andrew also pointed out that http://latimes.com/twitter lists 200-plus Twitter accounts.
LikeLike
Pam Robinson gave me permission to use this Facebook comment here: “I have to disagree here a bit about the tone of the Times memo. Given the fervor of attacks on journalists every time there’s a hint (real or imagined) of bias, it seems to me that newspapers should insist on using common sense. Which is all that I see here. And Henry Furhmann is a great guy, very thoughtful.”
I responded: “Thanks, Pam. I have emailed Fuhrmann and Nystrom says he’ll probably respond. I can respect a news organization that decides people should avoid opinion in social media. But good advice in using social media should tell more about what you should do than what you shouldn’t. And the Times offers none.” (I should add that Nystrom said Fuhrmann’s on vacation, so it could take him some time to respond.
LikeLike
Hi Steve. Henry is indeed back from vacation and drafting a reply.
I’d also point you to this page http://latimes.com/unhub which links to 40+ social outlets that we’ve been experimenting with over the past year or so. We’re hardly trying to discourage social media use, or hide our use of it. Quite the opposite.
Look forward to continuing the constructive discussion.
~ Andrew, Los Angeles Times social media + digital platforms guy
@AdNys on Twitter | http://facebook.com/latimesnystrom | andrew.nystrom [at] latimes.com
LikeLike
Henry has promised a response. I should say that the responses I have received so far here and on Facebook from Andrew, Henry and others show that the Times is more open to social media than the language of the guidelines indicated. My criticism of the guidelines stands and I continue to encourage a policy more like NPR’s. But I drew some conclusions about the Times environment for social media that seem unfair, given this broader picture. Actions to speak louder than words and the Times actions on social media are much more commendable than the guidelines. And more important. I may comment further, either after Henry’s response or after I return from Siberia or both.
LikeLike
Happy travels, Steve. For what it’s worth, NPR asked for a copy of our original guidelines and we consulted with them (and several other major news orgs) during their development phase. I believe Henry is working on a side-by-side comparison of NPR’s doc and ours. NB: The ABC doc you cite as “wise” includes four bullets that start with “Do not…”
I applaud your focus on the spirit of our doc, rather than nitpicking the language. Given that we already had hundreds of editorial staffers actively engaged daily with social media — both for personal and professional use — when we revised our doc, we felt it was time to offer guidance on specifics, and that a general encouraging intro was not necessary, since we were well beyond that juncture.
Most of the cautionary examples cited in our doc arose from real-life examples we’d encountered between v.1 and v.2 of the doc. I’m sure our docs will continue to evolve, right along with digital media.
Sincerely,
~ Andrew / @AdNys
LikeLike
I don’t see anything wrong with a news organization advising its employees to exercise some caution in this emerging medium. I think you help prove that point here, where you write:
The Times policy warns: “Your interactions could be subject to a third-party subpoena. The social media network has access to and control over everything you have disclosed to or on that site. For instance, any information might be turned over to law enforcement without your consent or even your knowledge.” Yes, and so could information you publish on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.
My thought: The information published in the LA Times is edited, usually by at least two people (a line editor and a copy editor), and more if it’s going on the front page. And if it’s submitted for publication, the reporter has probably put a lot of thought and research into it beforehand.
That’s very different from social media, where comments are tossed off quickly. I think it’s prudent for anyone – but particularly anyone representing a mainstream journalistic outlet – to think before they tweet (or post, or whatever).
(Disclosure: I’m a freelance writer and frequent contributor to the LA Times’ technology coverage.)
LikeLike
I agree that news organizations should encourage caution. But they should also encourage boldness. I saw too much caution and not enough boldness in the guidelines. I am pleased at what I’m hearing from Andrew about encouraging boldness in other ways and places.
LikeLike
@Dan: You thought echoes the thinking of our Standards & Practices committee, whose collective pro journalism experience easily tallies over 100 years on the job (it’s a large committee, mind you — I am one of the junior members).
@Steve: You’ll be happy to know that the internal-only Twitter How-To doc, which I’ve distributed several hundred copies of at LAT staff training sessions, includes a couple dozen Do’s and only 2 Don’ts (with blanks left for the class to fill in, as a group exercise).
A constant theme in our training and regular digital brownbag sessions is that social media isn’t for everyone in the newsroom, but that most people should find some value in engaging in at least some aspect of it, if they explore enough.
Once folks are encouraged to dip a toe in — usually by a trusted colleague and not some social media greenhorn like myself — we’ve found most folks discover their own ah-ha moments.
On a final, light-hearted note: Steve, you got me thinking…most journalists are contrarians, correct? Perhaps my superiors included a few “don’ts” in our doc due to the fact that they have a better grasp on the power of reverse psychology in running a newsroom. Just a thought.
LikeLike
Steve, thanks for holding the Times’ feet to the fire. Policies like this can be read literally — or interpreted for the subtext of extreme caution that they clearly communicate.
For those interested in the wider phenomenon of social media policies, I’ve compiled them at Socialmedia.biz here:
http://www.socialmedia.biz/social-media-policies/
And I had my own riff on all of this in October:
Newspaper social media policies: Out of touch
http://www.socialmedia.biz/2009/10/02/newpaper-social-media-policies-all-miss-mark/
LikeLike
[…] Criticism of the Los Angeles Times social media policy […]
LikeLike
[…] I criticized policies on social media ethics of the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times (Andrew Nystrom provided a pretty good defense in the comments) and praised the policies of the […]
LikeLike
[…] Los Angeles Times […]
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
[…] (like ASNE, AP’s policy is a pdf, an odd choice), Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. But they show too many glimpses of fear for me to support […]
LikeLike
[…] when I was highly critical of social media policies of the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and others, I praised the Times’ approach (but tweaked Keller for whining about staff […]
LikeLike