Virtual foot-in-mouth disease, thy name is Twitter.
Or Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat ... take your pick. It's all too easy to
post something in the space of 140 characters that you're certain to regret.
As former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., can attest, it's also
possible to tweet your way into unemployment.
Social media provide a wealth of opportunity for users to help grow their
brand, spread a fan base and fuel the flames of a celebrity scandal as well as
introduce up-to-the-second news on a presidential inauguration.
For news organizations, it's still a Wild West of guidelines. Reporters,
anchors and radio hosts are expected to embrace social media to help the
overall brand. But what does that mean? Every time a Post-Gazette writer
tweets about bad roads or the latest UPMC/Highmark kerfuffle, he/she is
promoting the newspaper.
If those same writers bore with details of the wonderful lunch they just
ate or, worse, express a controversial personal statement, are they out of
bounds? What about Facebook pages, where the opinions of the user's friends
might be deemed offensive to some?
WTAE-TV's Ashlie Hardway, a reporter who might have recused herself from
having anything to do with the coverage of a man who killed two people,
instead recently posted to her personal Facebook page a visceral "letter" to
Ronald Robinson after his sentencing.
"I saw them [first responders] as they flew past me on William Penn
Highway with lights and sirens. I saw them trying. Compressing. Begging. But
it was too late. You had already killed him."
Penn Hills officer Michael Crawshaw and another man, Danyal Morton, were
killed in 2009. Ms. Hardway, who grew up in the area, used to be married to a
Penn Hills police officer.
Clearly, she is entitled to her opinions. But she inserts herself into
the story when she writes, "I will never forget walking up to Mr. & Mrs.
Crawshaw's home. ... with a handwritten note I had scrawled on my lap in the
live truck. ... I remember being in North Braddock on a totally different
story four days later when my phone rang. I remember the crack in Mrs.
Crawshaw's voice -- the thank you for the note -- the appreciation for the way
my station and I handled the coverage."
In the comments section of that post, readers were generally supportive.
But posters to a local online forum for TV and radio were aghast. The post was
removed from her Facebook page some time after Monday morning.
Michael Hayes, president and general manager at WTAE-TV, did not choose
to specifically address Ms. Hardway's post but noted, "By its nature, social
media engages the viewers and offers many different angles of insight to a
story. It continues to represent a change in the dynamic way news and
information is now being consumed."
Should social media accounts be proprietary? Who actually owns the
account linked to your work, and if the powers-that-be demand a post be
changed or removed, are you legally obligated to do so?
Can an unflattering post via social media get you into trouble? This is
hardly an issue confined to journalism, as any teacher with "red cup" photos
on her Facebook page has learned.
The easy answer: Who knows? Social media policies are works in progress.
But in the case of journalists, some occasionally walk a very fine line
between upholding public truths and inserting themselves into news stories.
Five years ago, it was unlikely any news organization had formal social
media policies. Today, most -- including the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- have
fluid guidelines that address incidents on a case-by-case basis.
"We don't have a formal social media policy, but we do have a social
media editor who is our guide on training and advising people in the newsroom
on best practices," said Susan Smith, Post-Gazette managing editor.
"Basically we tell our staffers to use their best judgment and not to do
anything on social media that would violate basic journalistic principles of
fairness and non-partisanship or that is simply in bad taste and would reflect
negatively on them and the Post-Gazette. That's pretty broad, I know, but we
haven't had any real problems, so I think people get it."
In late 2012, The New York Times enforced a monthlong suspension of
Magazine feature freelance author Andrew Goldman after he engaged in a Twitter
debate with novelist Jennifer Weiner.
Ms. Weiner questioned why Mr. Goldman would need to ask actress Tippi
Hedren in an interview whether she considered giving in to Alfred Hitchcock's
sexual advances; an HBO movie about their troubled relationship had just been
released.
This escalated into a snarky online fight, with Mr. Goldman retorting to
Ms. Weiner, "You would have liked at least to have had opportunity to sleep
way to top."
Times associate managing editor for standards Philip B. Corbett responded
with a staff memo. After reminding reporters, "your online behavior should be
appropriate for a Times journalist," he quoted the paper's ethical journalism
policy: "Civility applies whether an exchange takes place in person, by
telephone, by letter or online."
The New York Times also has considered what it means to report from the
field via social media, as compared to edited stories in print.
In early 2012, the Times' Jodi Rudoren became Jerusalem bureau chief.
Although her reporting was praised, some of her posts on social media quickly
ignited protests from all sides.
During the Gaza conflict, her Facebook post described Palestinians as
"ho-hum" about the death of loved ones, according to a column by Times public
editor Margaret Sullivan. "That was a ridiculous word to use," she later told
Ms. Sullivan. "I just wasn't careful enough."
There were other instances, enough to prompt the Times to assign a
foreign editor to work with her from New York.
"The idea is to capitalize on the promise of social media's engagement
with readers while not exposing The Times to a reporter's unfiltered and
unedited thoughts," wrote Ms. Sullivan.
Protect readers from "unfiltered and unedited thoughts"? Where's the
trust here? Ms. Rudoren is an experienced journalist, not Charlie Sheen.
According to the Times, the National Labor Relations Board recently
affirmed that across-the-board policies are unrealistic, and that workers must
be allowed to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution.
Even if it's on Facebook.
"Many view social media as the new watercooler," said Mark G. Pearce,
NLRB chair. "All we're doing is applying traditional rules to a new
technology."
