WaPo to Reporters: Please Back Away from the Social Media
The Washington Post announced Sunday that it's put restrictions on its staff members use of Twitter and social networks:
When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.
It continues: “Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”
To work for the Washington Post is to give up your right to have any kind of written opinion on the Internet. That's it for Facebook, kids. Please hand in your Twitter-friendly smartphones at the door.
Maybe that sounds OK for workplace productivity -- but consider that the places reporters have just been banned from are the places many millions of Americans are getting their news these day. They're being asked to step out of that conversation completely. Nice work, WaPo. Good luck staying afloat.
I feel the greatest step backward that all major U.S. news sources have taken in the past 100 years is the dogged denial of point of view. Reporters are not and probably never will be robots. They are men and women born with opinions, and because they often work day-in, day-out in the trenches on certain topics, they often become experts -- meaning theirs are the best kind of opinions: Informed Opinions.
Instead of valuing that, though, the Post and many of its brethren believe that by forcing reporters to act objective, they can actually make their reporters objective. It's fine, and even admirable, to force journalists to consider all sides of a story as they work on it. It's probably a good idea to keep them from sending out fund-raising letters for certain candidates on official stationery. But it's stupid, absolutely drop-dead dumb, to imagine that a person's own position on an issue does not influence her work if she's not allowed to express that opinion openly.
Let's try this out: If I don't like broccoli, if I believe broccoli is wrong, but I say over and over and over again, no, I'm neutral about broccoli, eventually I will be. Right? Sure, except for every time I taste it or see it or smell it, when it's going to make me want to throw up1. So if you assign me a story on broccoli, and I really, really hate broccoli, but I've been forced for years to say nothing about that -- am I going to go into the Broccoli Growers of America headquarters feeling absolutely nothing? Am I going to be able to write a neutral report on the benefits of broccoli?
NO. I might get close to it, but the truth is if I stated up front that I do not believe in broccoli, the editor assigning the story will have two better options: she can send me to do the story understanding my bias, and choosing to correct for it either in her own editing OR by letting me put it into the story right up front, or she can assign someone who actually IS neutral on broccoli.
Now substitute "broccoli" for "U.S. Policy on Genocide in Darfur" or "Health Care Reform" or "Detainee Abuse." What's the better option?
The ability to admit to one's own bias up front on any issue is the first step in actually writing informative pieces about that issue. To understand that, though, major newspapers need to back away from the idea that information is always neutral. It is no more neutral than are circumstances. Sometimes things suck; sometimes they don't make sense. Sometimes, the emperor is wearing no clothes. Reporters, more than anyone, should be free to say so, whether on or off the job, whether in their stories or via their personal Twitter accounts.
1. Bias up-front: Actually, I love broccoli. Mm.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Redstocking Grandma
cmnaylor
Kathy Riordan
aging hippie chick
Poet of Logan Square
Just Cathy
Salon.com
Comments
"But it's stupid, absolutely drop-dead dumb, to imagine that a person's own position on an issue does not influence her work if she's not allowed to express that opinion openly."
In journalism school, they teach you can not be unbiased, it's the human condition, more you need to be "fair and accurate." I think many reporters/broadcasters do this phenomenally well and it is how they remain open to getting the hard-hitting interviews from unpopular regimes and the like. They develop a reputation for being fair and accurate. You can see their opinion through their questions and summaries.
If you want to be fully opinionated - you can choose to be a columnist/pundit/talk show host. I think both have a place at the table.
Full disclosure. Not found enough in news reporting these days.
"The ability to admit to one's own bias up front on any issue is the first step in actually writing informative pieces about that issue."
This is why there actually is some value in reading an ordinary person's blog. Journalist dance around the issue and feign objectivity and normal people just come forth with their biases if they are serious about their coverage.
I think in this age of unpaid-journalism versus normal-journalism it is a lesson the professionals could stand to learn from the amateurs.
Just admit it!
There are so many things wrong with the kind of faux objectivity foisted on reporters by newsroom management it's hard to know where to start.
The basic problem is the kind of classical notions of "objectivity" or even "fairness and balance" don't work any more, because the spin industry has found just too many ways to subvert them.
And besides, trying to make reporters objectively neutral -- or, more accurately, neutered -- doesn't necessarily make for better reporting. It makes for not disinterested, but uninterested, reporters and that's deadly.
When I worked for The Forum here in Fargo, one of the editors decided to respond by the Jaysen Blair scandal by having us write the mother of all ethics codes. It was a nightmare of the mind and nerves; we had to research other papers' codes (including the NY Times's, which is something like 40 pages long and didn't do a hell of a lot to stop Blair) and try to cover pretty much every eventuality. You would not believe the amount of time we spent debating -- and I am NOT joking about this -- issues like whether, if you were interviewing some little old lady in her home about her quilting hobby, it was ethical to accept a cup of coffee from her.
So eventually, this Melville-length ethics code was trotted out to the public amid much ballyhoo. Even though the editor who demanded it is long dead, the current editor was his protege and occasionally ballyhoos it still.
But from a practical level, all it became was an easy way for editors to control reporters' private lives. I, for example, was barred from volunteering to do PR for the local Special Olympics, even though as a cops and courts reporter it was pretty unlikely I was ever going to cover SO. And the only reason I was ever given for having to stop doing it was "the ethics code."
Besides, it only applied to reporters. When they tried to float a controversial sales tax here to build a hockey arena, the publisher's second-in-command was on the steering committee that pushed it.
The other thing that's bothersome about this is the implied insult to the readers' intelligence. There's a lot of stupid folks out there, yeah, but most people know this kind of bullshit when they see it. Do the WaPo editors really think this would matter to most folks? They need to get out more.
Okay, I'll stop now.
Plus, the ethical argument they seem to be making does have merit. Whatever fun we might have had with the Obama-Kanye kerfuffle, it was an ethical breach and a huge embarrassment (at least) for ABC.
As a government employee, I am prohibited by law and by policy from any number of activities that are common in private industry. The idea behind these restrictions is that I must not be influenced by those who would gain from decisions I might make in official capacity. So, I may not even take a coffee mug of a free t-shirt when attending a conference from a company that does business with the state of Texas. Some of it seems like overkill, but there is a defensible rationale behind it, is all I am saying.
As an employee, I like to think of myself as "renting my behavior" to my employer. For the most part, once I leave the job site, I can do as I please. But not completely. I am still obliged to follow a number of policies even when I am off work. This is what the Washington Post is asserting here. They are making adherence to this draconian-appearing policy part of the terms of employment with their firm. What are you gonna do?
If the beleaguered newspaper industry reacts to the emerging world of technological "advances" by raising the castle drawbridge and expecting its minions to stay within those protected grounds, they've already lost the battle (not for technology supremecy but the battle against ignorance and untruth.). Reporters need as many weapons in this war as they can get, and their employers have to trust them to use them carefully and ethically. The reporters I know are a scrupulous lot, they know enough to apply common sense to questions of self-involvement in the news and the importance of appearance to readers and sources.
And we know know enough not to follow the long-standing example of newspaper executives who sit on the boards of hospitals, regional planning boards, various tax-deductible charity organizations and claim none of it influences their opinions or editorial interests.
nothing on the net is truly private and self censorship is essential
impartiality is an illusion - or self delusion - a bit like the rule of the theatre that actors and staff must never use the pass door between auditorium and backstage
in the end, everyone would be best reminded that the original policies - things like 'think before you speak' and 'loose lips sink ships' - are evergreen for a reason.
I think that is a fair point, and I agree that those who do straight reporting should try to control their bias. But at the same time, we all have a point of view that will colour the way we perceive facts (and which facts we choose to seek out). As such, I find it very interesting that reporters have begun to blog and tweet, as it gives us readers a window into the person behind the news stories. That is valuable when we want to judge their reporting.
The fact that a reporter has an ideology doesn't in any way invalidate her reporting, as long as she presents the facts as she finds them. But it's better to be open about your ideology than to pose as objective. To take the extreme example: I don't mind the fact that Fox News has an ideology and an agenda. I do mind the fact that they pretend to be "fair and balanced".