One of our assigned readings this week outlines the social media guidelines for students in Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. These are based on "A Newsroom Guide for Using Social Networks" by Kelly McBride of The Poynter Institute.
Maybe I read it wrong, but one thing in ASU's version concerned me. "Aggressively manage 'friends' and followers and their comments. Delete comments that call into question your ability to act independently as a journalist and, if necessary, remove 'friends' or followers who make such comments."
McBride's version puts it differently: "Manage your friends and their comments. Delete comments and de-friend people who damage your reputation."
My concern with the "aggressive" management advised by ASU lies in interpretation. Let's face it -- the thickness of journalist skin varies widely. Some people can take a lot of criticism and even thrive on it, using it as a means to spur dialogue about the subject. Others, however, take offense at the slightest hint of negativity. So, in those cases, "aggressive" management of friends and comments could shut down valuable discussion. And it could result in accusations of censorship.
I would want my students to consider this very carefully as they craft editorial guidelines for managing website comments and social media.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Good Timing
This week I've been watching a young family member struggle with social media etiquette. Well, she hasn't exactly struggled - she's voiced her opinions loudly (in all caps at times) and clearly. Her catfight with a "friend" started with a misunderstanding and quickly escalated into an ugly, nasty exchange that went on for more than a day.
On my lunch break today, I called and preached a sermon about the lasting nature of the Internet, the likelihood that future employers might well conduct Internet searches, the potential legal issues, and so forth. My young relative, to her credit, had already been thinking about her behavior. She was contrite and resolved to take the high road in future. And she apologized for any embarrassment she might have caused adult family members.
While I could have done without this situation, it did provide me with a personal angle on we have been reading about lately concerning social media issues associated with scholastic media. My young relative did not work on a school newspaper or yearbook (more's the pity), but she told me during our phone conversation that she is mindful of the example she needs to set for the little girl she babysits.
It's highly likely, then, that my take on this week's assignment involving a guide to social and digital media for an editorial policy will touch on these points from "Online Ethical Considerations":
On my lunch break today, I called and preached a sermon about the lasting nature of the Internet, the likelihood that future employers might well conduct Internet searches, the potential legal issues, and so forth. My young relative, to her credit, had already been thinking about her behavior. She was contrite and resolved to take the high road in future. And she apologized for any embarrassment she might have caused adult family members.
While I could have done without this situation, it did provide me with a personal angle on we have been reading about lately concerning social media issues associated with scholastic media. My young relative did not work on a school newspaper or yearbook (more's the pity), but she told me during our phone conversation that she is mindful of the example she needs to set for the little girl she babysits.
It's highly likely, then, that my take on this week's assignment involving a guide to social and digital media for an editorial policy will touch on these points from "Online Ethical Considerations":
- We will not create personal or professional attacks in our use of social media on the people (we) report on. We will keep the personal and the professional separate.
- We agree that staff members should conduct themselves in social media forums with an eye to how their behavior or comments might appear if called upon to defend them as a news organization.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Shoe-Leather Reporter
In reading about David Broder, the veteran political writer for The Washington Post who died March 9, I found some life lessons for student journalists … well, make that journalists of all ages.
1. Do your homework and do right by your sources.
Broder’s career illustrates that the two go hand in hand. Post columnist E.J. Dionne was among those who commented on Broder’s approach to his work. “It's been said eloquently by so many others that he was a reporter's reporter – and within that, a citizen's reporter, a voter's reporter. It wasn't just that he knew every governor and every state party chair in the country – and some enormous proportion of county commissioners, state legislators and city council members, too.
“It was also that he felt compelled, constantly, to go door-to-door to talk to voters," Dionne continued. "They were subjects for Broder, not objects. He wasn't trolling for good quotes. He truly wanted to know what and how people thought and felt. He wanted to understand them.”
Jack Betts, associate editor of The Charlotte Observer, referenced Broder with the moniker reflected in the title of this blog post. Over the years, Betts “ran into Broder from time to time as he breezed through the state on the trail of one story or another, watched him question businessmen, college presidents and those who might know something he needed to know. His interviews always seemed more like conversations than interrogations.”
2. Own up to your mistakes.
"As a reporter, Mr. Broder admitted shortcomings on issues great and small," the Post's Adam Bernstein wrote. "He compiled for publication his 'annual accounting of errors and misjudgments' highlighing his bloopers in election coverage."
3. Help your colleagues.
Dionne first witnessed Broder’s bigheartedness as a 23-year-old reporter in the runup to the 1976 New Hampshire primary.
“I was then working for The New York Times and found myself in a press room, during a debate as I recall. And here was Dave Broder, one of the most famous and accomplished political reporters in the United States, bounding in after doing some reporting – he was always reporting. He just handed his notes over to a younger reporter and said, ‘Here, you can use these.’
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
More on Comments
After last week's rant on comments, I decided to channel my distaste constructively by taking on a comments-related assignment for the social roles class. I wrote a letter to my imaginary students designed to get them started on crafting a comments policy for their new website and Facebook page.
An e-mail this morning from The Poynter Institute about the latest Romenesko tidbits sent me to The Indianapolis Star, which is facing a judge's order to reveal the identity of those who commented anonymously about a former CEO of a nonprofit organization.
Whoa, Nellie. Along with all the other issues related to online comments, now we might have to worry about shield law implications?
Now I'm even more in favor of requiring registration for comments.
An e-mail this morning from The Poynter Institute about the latest Romenesko tidbits sent me to The Indianapolis Star, which is facing a judge's order to reveal the identity of those who commented anonymously about a former CEO of a nonprofit organization.
Whoa, Nellie. Along with all the other issues related to online comments, now we might have to worry about shield law implications?
Now I'm even more in favor of requiring registration for comments.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Say What?!
As far as user comments go, I’m firmly in the registration-required camp.
My position on this goes back years to when the newspaper where I used to work launched a “vent” phone line so callers could leave messages about stories, community issues and whatnot. A selection of vents was published regularly in print (and later online). While there was an occasional nugget of wisdom, most vents fell into one of these categories: mean-spirited, bigoted, just plain stupid or outer space. Readers, of course, loved it.
The vent line bothered me for two reasons: one, the hate-filled tone the comments all too often took; and two, the lack of accountability. Callers could leave messages in comfortable anonymity, yet authors of letters to the editor had to submit their names and contact information.
For the same reasons, I deplore systems that allow readers to leave comments without registering. Unlike vent lines, online comments can appear almost instantaneously – and are often unfiltered. Sure, comments can be deleted, but once out there, the damage is done. Just ask Lara Logan.
To those who cry “censorship” at any attempt to regulate comments, I respectfully remind you that the First Amendment does not allow journalists to publish anything they damn well please. Ever heard of libel? Obscenity? Fighting words?
Read up on those before you leave your next comment.
My position on this goes back years to when the newspaper where I used to work launched a “vent” phone line so callers could leave messages about stories, community issues and whatnot. A selection of vents was published regularly in print (and later online). While there was an occasional nugget of wisdom, most vents fell into one of these categories: mean-spirited, bigoted, just plain stupid or outer space. Readers, of course, loved it.
The vent line bothered me for two reasons: one, the hate-filled tone the comments all too often took; and two, the lack of accountability. Callers could leave messages in comfortable anonymity, yet authors of letters to the editor had to submit their names and contact information.
For the same reasons, I deplore systems that allow readers to leave comments without registering. Unlike vent lines, online comments can appear almost instantaneously – and are often unfiltered. Sure, comments can be deleted, but once out there, the damage is done. Just ask Lara Logan.
To those who cry “censorship” at any attempt to regulate comments, I respectfully remind you that the First Amendment does not allow journalists to publish anything they damn well please. Ever heard of libel? Obscenity? Fighting words?
Read up on those before you leave your next comment.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Plagiarism ... Not?
Is it plagiarism when you reuse your own work?
Yes. And no. So say those commenting on an unapologetic admission by Mike Rosen of The Denver Post that he lifted part of a column about supply-side economics from earlier work written for ... no, not The Denver Post, but the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News.
Comments (two) on Poynter's Romenesko were firmly on the "no" side as of Devil Machine press time:
"You can no more plagiarize yourself then you can visit an unsafe haven."
"Rewriting yourself is a nonscandal. I do it occasionally, and with links to the original versions, but even if I didn't, this goes beyond being a victimless crime; in the annals of journalism, this doesn't count as a crime at all."
Reaction on Denver's Westword blog, where the issue first was raised, was more nuanced (not to mention profane). Here's a sampling:
"He's stealing money from the DP which is paying him to produce original content."
"Would the current owner of the Rocky Mountain News archives be interested in Rosen's 'borrowing' of their copyrighted material?"
"Rosen didn't plagiarize, which makes the headline wrong. A better headline and focus for the story: 'Mike Rosen Recycles Column: Do Readers Deserve to Know They're Reading a Rerun?' That's the heart of the debate, whether Rosen needed to inform readers and his employer that he was recycling. Unfortunately, it's lost under a loaded buzzword like plagiarism, and everyone is arguing about that instead of what matters."
What a robust ethical discussion this situation would prompt in a student newsroom. Should you reuse your own material? Can you plagiarize yourself? If you reuse your own material, what do you owe readers in terms of transparency? What do you owe your former employer, for whom you originally wrote the material (better check out that copyright issue)?
Yes. And no. So say those commenting on an unapologetic admission by Mike Rosen of The Denver Post that he lifted part of a column about supply-side economics from earlier work written for ... no, not The Denver Post, but the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News.
Comments (two) on Poynter's Romenesko were firmly on the "no" side as of Devil Machine press time:
"You can no more plagiarize yourself then you can visit an unsafe haven."
"Rewriting yourself is a nonscandal. I do it occasionally, and with links to the original versions, but even if I didn't, this goes beyond being a victimless crime; in the annals of journalism, this doesn't count as a crime at all."
Reaction on Denver's Westword blog, where the issue first was raised, was more nuanced (not to mention profane). Here's a sampling:
"He's stealing money from the DP which is paying him to produce original content."
"Would the current owner of the Rocky Mountain News archives be interested in Rosen's 'borrowing' of their copyrighted material?"
"Rosen didn't plagiarize, which makes the headline wrong. A better headline and focus for the story: 'Mike Rosen Recycles Column: Do Readers Deserve to Know They're Reading a Rerun?' That's the heart of the debate, whether Rosen needed to inform readers and his employer that he was recycling. Unfortunately, it's lost under a loaded buzzword like plagiarism, and everyone is arguing about that instead of what matters."
What a robust ethical discussion this situation would prompt in a student newsroom. Should you reuse your own material? Can you plagiarize yourself? If you reuse your own material, what do you owe readers in terms of transparency? What do you owe your former employer, for whom you originally wrote the material (better check out that copyright issue)?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Objectivity, Transparency and Diversity
A big story broke in medialand this week with AOL's purchase of The Huffington Post. Amid concerns about the long-term effect of media consolidation on journalism came this gem from HuffPost's Peter S. Goodman, which I found through Poynter's Romenesko:
“In the sort of journalism I am interested in practicing here, I want my reporters to reject the false idea that you simply poll people at both extremes of any issue, then paint a line down the middle and point to it as reality. We have to reject the tired notion that objectivity means the reader can get all the way to the bottom of the story and not know what to think. We do have to be objective in our journalism, but this does not mean we are empty vessels with no ideas of our own, and with no prior experiences that influence what we ultimately deliver … .”
Goodman’s column – which should be required reading for every reporter – focused mostly on political and business coverage, but its underlying messages apply to all forms of journalism. He was particularly eloquent about objectivity, transparency and diversity:
“… [O]bjectivity means that we conduct a fully open-minded inquiry. We do not begin our reporting with a fully-formed position. We do not adhere to the contentions of one think tank or political party or government organ as truth. We don't write to please our friends or sources or interest groups. Rather, we do our own reporting, our own independent thinking, our own scrutinizing. But at the end of that process, we offer a conclusion, and transparently so, with whatever caveats are in order. …
“And this sort of objectivity is the real argument for diversity in newsrooms – the need to ensure that we have people in place who can tell a greater range of stories, so that we collectively see and understand the breadth of the American experience.”
Amen, brother.
“In the sort of journalism I am interested in practicing here, I want my reporters to reject the false idea that you simply poll people at both extremes of any issue, then paint a line down the middle and point to it as reality. We have to reject the tired notion that objectivity means the reader can get all the way to the bottom of the story and not know what to think. We do have to be objective in our journalism, but this does not mean we are empty vessels with no ideas of our own, and with no prior experiences that influence what we ultimately deliver … .”
Goodman’s column – which should be required reading for every reporter – focused mostly on political and business coverage, but its underlying messages apply to all forms of journalism. He was particularly eloquent about objectivity, transparency and diversity:
“… [O]bjectivity means that we conduct a fully open-minded inquiry. We do not begin our reporting with a fully-formed position. We do not adhere to the contentions of one think tank or political party or government organ as truth. We don't write to please our friends or sources or interest groups. Rather, we do our own reporting, our own independent thinking, our own scrutinizing. But at the end of that process, we offer a conclusion, and transparently so, with whatever caveats are in order. …
“And this sort of objectivity is the real argument for diversity in newsrooms – the need to ensure that we have people in place who can tell a greater range of stories, so that we collectively see and understand the breadth of the American experience.”
Amen, brother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
