HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Where you get your news depends on where you stand on the issues
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Sept. 28, 2009, 9:58 a.m.

Is transparency the new objectivity? 2 visions of journos on social media

Nothing brings home the clash of cultures between “new” and “old” media like the debates over social-media policies at mainstream publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Earlier this year, the Times was in the spotlight for its attempt to develop a policy on Twitter in the wake of some indiscreet twittering about internal staff meetings. Last week it was the Post’s turn: The paper introduced a new social media policy that restricts its staffers from posting their opinions on Twitter (or any other social network), after one of its managing editors posted his thoughts about certain political issues such as health care and Congressional term limits.

The editor in question, Raju Narisetti, appeared frustrated with the moves, saying: “For flagbearers of free speech, some newsroom execs have the weirdest double standards when it comes to censoring personal views.” He has since said that he agrees with the policy, however, and has cancelled his Twitter account. Other WaPo journalists mocked the changes, meanwhile, with media reporter Howard Kurtz saying that “Under new WP guidelines on tweeting, I will now hold forth only on the weather and dessert recipes.”

The guidelines (which PaidContent has reprinted in full) state that “nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment” and highlighted “the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.” (There’s a list of over 100 corporate social-media policies here.)

A negative response

The response from some media industry observers was harsh: Rafat Ali, founder of PaidContent (owned by Guardian Media) said on Twitter: “I hope WaPo chokes on its own spit. New lame social media guidelines 4 journos,” and CUNY journalism professor and blogger Jeff Jarvis said: “Washington Post turns journalists into antisocial mannequins. So much for new connections to the community.” Northeastern University journalism professor Dan Kennedy said: “I would tweak WashPost Twitter policy: staffers can resume tweeting after taking advantage of company-paid lobotomy.”

Journalist Amy Gahran said that “when journos pretend to have NO opinions/biases, it *undermines* their credibility,” and Lisa Williams of Placeblogger.com said: “The fact that biases aren’t revealed just makes fertile ground for conspiracy theories, which erode trust in journalism.” Steve Buttry of Gazette Communications has more reaction to the policy and his own thoughts on the topic here.

From the Washington Post’s point of view (and that of The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, which issued similar rules), the maintenance of objectivity — or at least the appearance of objectivity — is the ultimate goal, and any potential benefits that stem from social media must be sacrificed in the pursuit of it. Those criticizing the newspaper’s moves, however, are of the view that objectivity is ultimately impossible, and that transparency is actually a better goal. In other words, disclosure of personal views and opinions whenever and wherever possible, rather than a pretense that they don’t exist.

Another vision from Britain

In an interesting juxtaposition, just as The Washington Post was rushing its new social media policy out the door, the BBC’s global news director was speaking to a media conference about the benefits of social media. Here’s Guardian reporter Mercedes Bunz on Richard Sambrook’s vision:

Objectivity, he then pointed out, had always been an idea important for the news. For him it was once designed to deliver journalism that people can trust. But in the new media age transparency is what delivers trust. He stressed that news today still has to be accurate and fair, but it is as important for the readers, listeners and viewers to see how the news is produced, where the information comes from, and how it works. The emergence of news is as important, as the delivering of the news itself.

Sambrook also spoke about “collaboration, openness and the culture of the link.”

So does this mean that reporters should feel free to openly criticize (or support) the people or organizations they are writing about? Some are afraid that, in that kind of world, everything will become opinion and no one will care about the facts any more — Technology Review editor Jason Pontin said on Twitter that someone “has to be in the business of describing what is factually known, before the rhetoric begins.”

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it has to be a binary choice. I think a smart reporter or writer won’t say things that would damage his or her credibility, either on Twitter or anywhere else. (Times editor Bill Keller effectively said the same thing during the fuss over the Times’ policy.) At the same time, however, a smart newspaper or media outlet should realize that using social media to connect with readers — even if that means embracing more transparency than it is typically used to — is a positive thing, rather than something to be feared and protected against.

(Note: David Weinberger’s answer to the question posed in the headline of this post is yes. He says transparency is inherent to the web, and that objectivity “is a trust mechanism you rely on when your medium can’t do links.”)

POSTED     Sept. 28, 2009, 9:58 a.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Where you get your news depends on where you stand on the issues
A new study by the Pew Research Center examines how Americans’ news consumption habits correlate with where they fall on the political spectrum.
Light everywhere: The California Civic Data Coalition wants to make public datasets easier to crunch
Journalists from rival outlets are pursuing the dream of “pluggable data,” partnering to build open-source tools to analyze California campaign finance and lobbying data.
Ebola Deeply builds on the lessons of single-subject news sites: A news operation with an expiration date
Following the blueprint of Syria Deeply, the new Ebola-focused site hopes to deliver context and coherence in covering the spread and treatment of the virus.
What to read next
1020
tweets
The newsonomics of the millennial moment
The new wave of news startups is aiming at a younger audience. But do legacy media companies have a chance at earning their attention?
803A mixed bag on apps: What The New York Times learned with NYT Opinion and NYT Now
The two apps were part of the paper’s plan to increase digital subscribers through smaller, targeted offerings. Now, with staff cutbacks on the way, one app is being shuttered and the other is being adjusted.
537Watching what happens: The New York Times is making a front-page bet on real-time aggregation
A new homepage feature called “Watching” offers readers a feed of headlines, tweets, and multimedia from around the web.
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
St. Louis Globe-Democrat
The Times of London
El País
FiveThirtyEight
Bloomberg
NBC News
Next Door Media
Hechinger Report
Honolulu Civil Beat
The Guardian
New England Center for Investigative Reporting
The Seattle Times