An email (slightly edited) from a Digital First Media journalist last week raised a couple questions I hear frequently relating to social media:
I asked an important question at a staff meeting today, and the city editor suggested I e-mail you. It has to do with tweeting and/or posting opinions.
As a reporter (I know, you like the term journo), it is ingrained in me not to reflect my opinions. Last weekend, I scanned Twitter off and on and found many news outlets tweeting about the Occupy Oakland protest going on. A TV van was damaged, a flag burned at City Hall, etc.
My first impulse was to tweet my personal gut response: that I didn’t understand protests and flag burning in my generation and I don’t now. I also wanted to tweet that once Occupy got violent, that ended the argument for me.
But I had misgivings about whether I should post any kind of opinion at all, so I refrained.
So, is there a guideline about this? I thought about asking via Twitter, but obviously that wouldn’t work.
My response (also slightly edited):
I’ll start by reminding you (or informing you, if you haven’t seen them yet) of John Paton’s rules for employee use of social media. John does not mean by these rules that anything goes, just that we want our use of social media to be guided by good journalism ethics (rather than specific social media rules) and don’t want our exploration of new tools to be inhibited by restrictive rules based on fear and ignorance.
Starting from there, my response is based on three main principles:
- Opinions are not fundamentally unethical journalism.
- Opinions matter, and the place of opinions in journalism is being reassessed on many fronts.
- Decisions about using Twitter should be guided by good journalism ethics, not by special rules or practices for Twitter.
We’ll take them in order:
The ethics of opinions. Even in traditional journalism, opinions are fine for editorial writers and columnists, but can be troublesome or forbidden for reporters and some editors. So we’ve always viewed opinion differently depending on a particular journalist’s circumstances.
However, in our view of which journalists can express opinions and which can’t, we ignore lots of exercise of opinion by so-called “objective” journalists. Any reporter or editor forms opinions and acts on them every day. We call them news judgments and pretend that they are objective, but they are highly subjective and vary widely from journalist to journalist. In the execution of a single routine story, editors and reporters act on at least the following opinions:
- That this story is more important, interesting or timely than other stories the reporter could be working on that day.
- Which of many possible angles to the story the reporter should pursue.
- Which of many possible sources the reporter should interview.
- Which facts, quotes, etc. should be included in the story and which should be omitted.
- Which piece of information deserves mention in the lead.
- How to cast the lead.
- Which words best tell the story.
- Which fact(s) merit mention in the headline.
- Which words best summarize the story in the headline.
- How to play the story.
That’s at least 10 opinions (some of them exercised multiple times) for just a routine story. They are subjective decisions upon which good professional journalists regularly disagree. I know because I have argued with colleagues over every one of those points.
Varying opinions about opinions. I’ve worked reporting beats where I kept my opinions completely to myself, and I’ve worked a reporting beat where I had a weekly column and expressed opinions regularly. And I’ve seen the benefits of both approaches.
When I covered the issue of abortion for the Omaha World-Herald in the 1990s, I decided I needed to be diligent about never expressing or even slightly indicating an opinion about abortion to any source or colleague ever. I earned the trust of extremists on both sides of one of the most polarizing issues of our time, in large part by persistently using neutral language (difficult to do on that topic) and by taking a completely straight, neutral approach in every interview and every story. And I did a lot of stories that plowed a lot of ground on that issue: on-the-record interviews with women with pregnancy issues who had undergone abortions and others who had decided not to; an analysis of the finances of an abortion clinic; profiles of extremist protesters and abortion doctors.
When I covered religion for the Des Moines Register from 1998 to 2000, I wrote a weekly column, providing commentary and sometimes personal perspective on religion issues in the news, sometimes on the very topics I was reporting on. I heard on multiple occasions from sources with whom I disagreed that the columns actually helped me build credibility with them. They would read a column that expressed a viewpoint and then expected to see that viewpoint reflected in my stories. But my stories treated them fairly, and that built my credibility with them. This isn’t a unique experience: David Broder covered politics as a reporter and columnist for decades.
I’m not saying which approach is better. I believe my experience shows that each approach has validity.
Dan Gillmor, author of We the Media and a digital journalism pioneer, has proposed replacing the ethic of objectivity with an ethic that combines transparency about opinions with accuracy, fairness and thoroughness in reporting.
Jay Rosen (a member of the Digital First Media advisory committee) says the effort to maintain objectivity has led to a “view from nowhere” approach that is outdated and harmful to journalism.
I’m not saying we should adopt either Dan’s or Jay’s approach, but I think each makes a better argument than most can make for objectivity. If the argument for objectivity is that it builds trust and credibility, take a look at polls reflecting how the public trusts journalists and tell me how that’s working.
I think this is a good discussion for journalists to have on blogs like mine and in newsrooms like yours, and I don’t think we necessarily have to decide that one approach is right for everyone. What I do think is that each newsroom should discuss these issues as a group and each editor-reporter combo or editor-editor combo should discuss what’s the right approach for that journalist, and behave accordingly.
Special rules for Twitter. If you and your editor decide (or if you disagree and your editor says that’s the way it is) that it’s inappropriate for you to express opinions (or to express them in a particular slice of national or community issues that you cover or might cover), then it’s inappropriate to express opinions on Twitter or Facebook or any other social media. But it’s no more inappropriate to express the opinions on social media than it would be in a bar or on a television appearance or a panel discussion in the community or in news copy.
Frankly, I think your observations about Occupy (and your internal discussions about whether and how to express such opinions) could make a good column, blog and/or series of tweets. But, if you actually cover Occupy, I would also understand and respect the decision that it would not be appropriate for you to express the opinions. (And it might be appropriate for you to flag your editor about your strong opinions, so he or she can watch for how they might influence your coverage.) But if no one’s occupying your community, or if you wouldn’t be the likely reporter to cover an occupation if it happened, I would also understand and respect the decision that it was fine for you to tweet opinions about Occupy.
One last point: If your editor and you decide it’s best not to express opinions (at all or on a particular issue such as Occupy), that doesn’t mean you can’t show some personality in social media. You can show some humor (some might be inappropriate), you can tweet about your family (as I did last week about the birth of my granddaughter), you can tweet sports loyalties (perhaps not if you’re a sports writer), you can tweet about other interests such as gardening, travel, etc.
I do feel strongly that social media demand being social and that means showing yourself as a person. Again, I don’t feel that’s unique to social media, though. I built strong relationships with sources by relating to them as people. We talked about our kids and our interests. We trash-talked about sports. When I interviewed people about religion, they asked about my own faith and religious experience and I answered their questions.
Thanks for asking. I have blogged a lot about objectivity, opinion and personality in journalism and social media. I hope some of these posts are helpful in your discussions and considerations of this issue:
Digital First journalists: What we value
If journalists were objective, Roger Maris would be in the Baseball Hall of Fame
Journalists’ Code of Ethics: Time for an Update?
Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists
Objectivity and neutrality aren’t the only ways to protect journalists’ credibility
Hi, Steve. I don’t think the question, “is it okay to express an opinion?” is well formed. “Objectivity: is that still the rule ’round these parts?” is not so good, either. We would be better off starting in a different place:
When does a journalist’s opinion add value?
I’m not particularly interested in journalists sounding off about the day’s events. I think the value added there is almost zero. But I am very interested in the conclusions a reporter comes to by working a story, reporting a beat or visiting the scene of a great event. If you’re just back from two years of reporting on Russia, then I am going to be very interested in what you think is going on there and what American policy should be. An editorial writer who had studied an issue over a long period of time, returning again and again to it… that person’s opinion has value to me.
We should focus, then, on the ground of knowledge from which an opinion rises, not on the “okay-ness” of expressing it. Whether it’s reporting a news story, writing a column, or crafting an editorial, we should ask the same questions: how can we speak with authority, add value, show our work, and make it easier for people to participate in the things we journalize about?
I would add that from everything we know (and any newspaper editor can attest to this) the users don’t draw sharp distinctions among a news story, a feature, a column, an editorial. The various rules that obsess journalists and give rise to social media codes are far less important than what I just said… Speak with authority. Add value. Show your work. Make it easier for the users to participate in what you’re covering. Do what you do best and link to the rest, as Jeff Jarvis puts it.
I said that “Objectivity: is that still the rule ’round these parts?” isn’t a good starting point, either. The reason I feel this way was explained in my more recent post on the View From Nowhere, which is a far better one to link to:
http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/
Here is what I wrote:
And here’s the part we don’t need:
So to sum up: don’t ask when it’s okay to express an opinion. That won’t get us there. Instead ask: when does a journalist’s opinion add the most value? As I said to you on Twitter: Opinion après-reportage is far more valuable than mere reaction. Report. Wrestle with self. Then opine. Or not. It’s a judgment call. And as your post rightly says, there is no action in journalism that is not saturated with judgment.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Excellent points, Jay. I think you have addressed thoroughly the value that a reporter’s informed opinions might bring to his or her work. I think we actually have a different case in the situation the reporter raised with me: In cases where a reporter isn’t informed and isn’t particularly adding value to the level you describe, should that reporter refrain from expressing casual opinions as any other citizen might?
And I plan to steal the word “okay-ness” sometime (hopefully I’ll remember where I saw it).
LikeLike
That doesn’t exactly answer the question of “so should I leave my snarky comments about Occupy Wall Street (or football or a political debate) on Twitter or not?”
If you’ve been covering Occupy Wall Street extensively, I guess you would say “yes because your thoughts are actually MORE valuable because you’ve been following the issue closely.” But most journos, even most PEOPLE, are just arm-chair observers. Even the example cited in the original email was basically a “gut-level” response but not an INFORMED response. It could very easily been a misreading of the situation. Of course if the reporter had been closely following the situation then it wouldn’t be a gut-level response.
LikeLike
Great post, especially that top-10 list of the ways opinions creep into the production of even a routine news story. A few others come to mind:
* What photo to run with the piece.
* The numbers and scale used on any infographic.
* If you end the story with a quote, who gets that last word?
* What definitions and issues are left undefined to save space.
This reminds me of an amusing section in one of Molly Ivins’ books in which she counseled reporters about how to get the truths they saw into a piece despite meddling/incompetent/wimpy editors–things like “save it for after the jump,” “wait to file until the last minute,” and so on.
– RP
LikeLike
Excellent points, Rob. And I’m sure we could think of a half-dozen or so more: the words we use to describe sources, when to use words like “allegedly,” “but” and “however,” which can affect how people read parts of the story, etc.
LikeLike
Whether your news sources come from social media, anti-social media, or traditional sources, I don’t think the issue is opinion-versus-objectivity. Rather, I think the keys are value and integrity, and the two go hand-in-hand.
I value a good doctor because they are trained to be experts in the field of medicine, and I am not. If they further earn my trust by providing me with effective guidance and treatment, then they have value to me.The same goes with journalists (or reporters, as the case may be). They can hold whatever opinions they want, as long as their perspectives result in providing me with effective guidance and perspective.
To use the same analogy, if a doctor promotes treatments that are ineffective — perhaps because he/she blindly favors a certain company’s pharmaceutical products for treatment — I consider their integrity to be breached, and their value to me has thus diminished. Once again, the parallel to reporting is clear. The “fuller perspective” is critically important to maintaining integrity.
In today’s news environment, I find thoughtful opinion to be quite valuable, I don’t have time to be an expert on all subjects, so I look for experts I can trust — as I do in many aspects of my life — and depend on them to sort the wheat from the chaff.
What I find most disconcerting in today’s news environment, however, is opinion masquerading as fact. That’s why I have developed a system to help quantify media bias.
LikeLike
Yes, huge difference between opinion based on fact and opinion masquerading as fact.
LikeLike
Steve, I’m curious how you define “opinion,” at least for the purposes of this post?
Also, what do you think are the differences between an opinion and an “argument” (as in, “but I think each makes a better argument than most can make for objectivity”)?
LikeLike
I would say an opinion is a judgment about which reasonable people could disagree. Taking it out of the journalism context, if you look at a particular painting, some facts about it would be the physical dimensions, what colors the artist used, the artist, the year he/she painted it. Opinions would be speculation about what the artist meant to portray, judgments about whether it was a great, good, mediocre or bad piece of art and whether it was better or worse than another piece. My opinion would matter very little because I don’t know jack about art. But an art scholar or art critic’s opinion would carry more weight (though other art scholars might disagree).
And sometimes the facts can turn into matters of opinion. For instance, someone might be of the opinion that the work was a fake, and not really the work of the purported artist.
As I see it, the difference between and opinion and an argument: An argument is an opinion and the supporting facts and/or opinions.
LikeLike
The value of social media is the involvement of many in discussions that can help individuals works through issues and answer thorny questions in their own minds. Fair opinions by journalists, or anyone else, who have an informed basis for their comments are always valuable. Reasonable responses by informed people also are valuable, especially because they add dimension and richness to the discussion.
There will always be those who talk through their hats or rant on certain topics, or somehow feel the need to remain firm in their beliefs despite what anyone points out…but over time and overall, fair and honest debate is necessary to democracy, and sorely missing in recent years…so yes, please venture an opinion I say. Set the tone and show the way and get us back to a society where disagreement does not mean having to crush opposing views.
LikeLike
[…] (by @stevebuttry) « A salute to the American Press Institute (and hope for a prosperous future) Link – […]
LikeLike
[…] >MORE Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s a good idea for this reporter to take to Twitter to voice opposition to the Occupy movement’s latest turn. It doesn’t add to the conversation, and it could hurt the credibility of the reporter and news outlet.
There is a place in journalism – and that includes social media – for insight, analysis, aggressive questioning and *informed* opinion. But this reporter is not informed – and not only because he or she does not cover Occupy. If you do not understand why people protest or burn flags, either stay out of the discussion or take time to learn why people believe in those things. It’s our job as reporters to get at people’s motivations so we can write accurately and authoritatively. By jumping into a debate on Twitter, you are writing about it, even if it is just in 140-word bursts. So those same principles apply. (I might be being too hard on this reporter, who could very well get protesters’ motivations).
Now what if this question came from a seasoned Occupy beat reporter? I want to earn the trust of people I cover so I can break news and write with authority, and siding with one side isn’t going to help. There are more productive ways to engage in social media.
When Occupy Denver protests were at their peak, a Twitter user sharply criticized one of our stories in The Denver Post for using the term “hive” to describe a group of protesters clashing with police. She said we were likening protesters to insects or vermin. (This is someone I follow and who follows me back). I defended the word choice (it wasn’t my story) and pointed to a dictionary definition of hive as “a place swarming with activity.” She didn’t buy it. We went back and forth. In the end, we agreed to disagree. But both of us ended the conversation acknowledging appreciation for the back-and-forth.
I got a better sense of where she was coming from, and she, hopefully, found a reporter who wants to engage with people who are reading.
I also have background covering the religion beat. I never balanced reporting and writing a column, but social media now gives everyone an opportunity to write informed opinion. I don’t see any value in me tweeting or posting to Facebook something like, “Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput, champion of the right to life, shows courage in his latest pronouncement.” Or, “Archbishop Chaput, far-right reactionary bishop, attacks Obama yet again.”
I would, though, write that Chaput, a leading voice in orthodox Catholicism, will likely have a harder time as Philadelphia’s new archbishop because that city has a stronger liberal Catholic presence than Denver. That’s an informed opinion that adds to readers’ understanding – not some rant.
LikeLike
Thanks, Eric. Good points. I tried (and, I think, succeeded) to present informed opinion of the kind you describe as a religion columnist.
LikeLike
Steve,
Interesting post. But again, I’ll bring up something from our old light saber match, the medium, Twitter, may change but the rule of good journalism does not. A reporter’s personal feelings, opinions should not get in the way of an accurate portrayal of an event. I say accurate because truth can sometimes be a relative term and the objectivity adage is brimming with falsehood because we unwittingly and sometimes deliberately insert ourselves into stories each day. When we decide the person to interview (do we really believe any complex issues has only two sides???), which research to cite, what photo to pick, the words we choose, we insert a bit of our background, education and upbringing in our reporting.
For example, I often see minorities quoted in newspaper articles, or on television, when issues such as crime, poverty, poor education and other social ills are covered or when the focus of the stories are ONLY minorities ie., minority owned businesses or as outliers, the all-Latino violin band or whatever. Yet when subjects such as leisure travel, high-net worth finance, beer brewing or triathlon are covered it seems minorities know nothing of these topics because they’re hardly featured in the media when such topics come up. As a triathlete, who is friends with beer geek web writer, has a cousin in high-net worth finance and has traveled to more than 35 countries, my experience dictates to me that minorities are not off limits to those topics so I naturally will use them as sources in such topics. So even sins of omission may show our bias in reporting.
But as Eric said (hi Eric!) there is a way of accurately describing an event that avoids editorializing while adding informed commentary on the day’s news. But the public is wary of this “analysis.”
According to Pew 77% of Americans think the media is biased anyway, and 63% say the media doesn’t care about the people it reports on. So why go throwing fuel onto that bias fire by Tweeting derogatory remarks about the people you are purporting to serve? You are the people’s instrument, when you belong to a free press. This isn’t your personal fiefdom where you get to say or do anything you want. You sacrifice a bit of that in exchange for the public’s trust. Does that mean you can’t have a personal blog? I hope not. Can you Tweet frustration about your job, life whatever? Sure. But when you start Tweeting inflamed opinions about the people you’re covering well, that seems out of line.
Instead of the reporter being derisive of the Occupy movement why not use his Twitter stream to gain further insight into his audience? What do they think of flag burning? Of the violence? Ask someone to explain their flag burning stance. Then you can write a news story about it, adding to the discussion instead of taking away from it.
LikeLike
[…] Buttry addresses the issue of journalists’ expression via social media with three main […]
LikeLike
[…] traffic. People who agree and disagree will share the link on social media. I blogged Feb. 6 about journalists’ opinions, and whether and how they should express them, or be free to express them, in social media. This is […]
LikeLike
[…] points, brought up on Steve Buttry’s blog, […]
LikeLike
[…] being an icon or a legend is really a matter of opinion. But that makes my point about how many opinions really work their way into the news coverage that many traditional journalists describe as objective. 0.000000 0.000000 Rate this: Share […]
LikeLike
[…] writes Steve Buttry, director of community engagement and social media at Digital First Media in a blog post about journalist’s opinions and social media. But, he notes, if an editor says a journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] writes Steve Buttry, director of community engagement and social media at Digital First Media in a blog post about journalist’s opinions and social media. But, he notes, if an editor says a journalists […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on gerrynutter'slowell and commented:
In light of my friend Jack’s Post on Left in Lowell, I found this to be a very interesting and timely blog post to share. Please note the author and the fact that it is the parent company of the Sun.
LikeLike
I did not publish a comment left here last week because it made a personal attack on another individual. I emailed the commenter asking for more information and the commenter had left a bogus email address. I am interested in learning more and won’t publish the comment until I can deal directly with the commenter. You can email be at sbuttry (at) digitalfirstmedia (dot) com.
LikeLike
[…] also am not going to elaborate here the issue of expressing opinions on Twitter, which I’ve written about before. You and your editor should discuss whether opinions are […]
LikeLike
[…] Questions and answers about journalists’ opinions in social media […]
LikeLike
[…] for journalists on expressing personal opinions (a topic I’ve addressed here […]
LikeLike
[…] sources before publication (that prompted a re-post of an old workshop handout), transparency, expressing opinions in social media and multiple posts on confidential sources (including another from the Training Tracks […]
LikeLike
[…] this particular context, I’m not criticizing the culture of objectivity in the sense of journalists expressing opinions, though I’ve done that. What concerns me here is the call to suppress our individual humanity — the personal insight […]
LikeLike
[…] or, ideally both) how they should use social media: What’s the appropriate place (if any) for opinion in their social media use; how much they should or should not mix personal and professional social media use. You can hear […]
LikeLike
[…] you and a reporter haven’t discussed whether that reporter should state opinions in social media and you are surprised by an opinionated tweet about a topic he covers. Again, that may not call for […]
LikeLike
[…] also led an evening discussion of ethics, where we discussed topics such as objectivity, opinions, opinions in social media, accuracy checklists and plagiarism. Among the things we discussed were the Manti Te’o story […]
LikeLike
[…] Questions and answers about journalists’ opinions in social media […]
LikeLike
[…] found on Twitter. We also would discuss how to assess and decide whether it’s appropriate to voice opinions on Twitter (and other social media) about stories you’re covering. I’d make sure the students […]
LikeLike
[…] Questions and answers about journalists’ opinions in social media (2012) […]
LikeLike
[…] Link: https://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/questions-and-answers-about-journalists-opinions-in-soci… […]
LikeLike
[…] there’s a lot of discussion and debate about how to do this, I have a few standards I try to abide […]
LikeLike
[…] knew anything about me and what I teach in journalism, he would know that I’ve advocated more transparency about journalists’ opinions. So his faux concern for my students is entirely misplaced. I encourage my students to think about […]
LikeLike
[…] I have noted here before, front pages have never been free from opinion. The decisions of which stories go on the front […]
LikeLike
[…] blogged my views on journalists expressing their opinions in 2012, and led a Digital First Media group that offered advice to our colleagues on expressing […]
LikeLike
[…] to The Buttry Diary, in traditional journalism, expressing opinions are fine for editorial writers and columnists, but […]
LikeLike
[…] See link below to his full blog post from the Buttry Dairy. https://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/questions-and-answers-about-journalists-opinions-in-soc… […]
LikeLike