A week ago, the Washington Post published a guest opinion column in the wake of the Rutgers suicide that implied that being gay is a result of mental health issues. The article sparked some controversy, and a staffer responded to a gay rights group via Twitter, defending the Post’s decision to publish the column:
That led @glaad to respond that there are “no two sides” to teen suicides, which was retweeted all over…etc. Soon thereafter, the Post published an internal memo to its staff:
“Even as we encourage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolutely vital to remember that the purpose of these Post branded accounts is to use them as a platform to promote news, bring in user generated content and increase audience engagement with Post content. No branded Post accounts should be used to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, just as you should follow our normal journalistic guidelines in not using your personal social media accounts to speak on behalf of the Post.
Perhaps it would be useful to think of the issue this way: when we write a story, our readers are free to respond and we provide them a venue to do so. We sometimes engage them in a private verbal conversation, but once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor–and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It’s something we don’t do….”
I certainly understand the risk of debating via Twitter — or in comments, for that matter — because in some cases, it can make matters worse. But this memo appears to take it a step further: to limit social media efforts to one-way roles of distribution and promotion, isolating two-way conversations in private channels.
This approach limits the news organization’s ability to show much-needed transparency in a time in which the majority of Americans seriously distrust journalists. Less than a third of U.S. news consumers believe “all or most reporting” by 14 major news organizations, found a Pew study released last month, with “your daily newspaper” coming in at just 21%.
To me, social media is an opportunity to regain that trust. By definition, it means opening up control, broadening the filter and occasionally making mistakes. It shows that journalists are human, and the sooner we admit that fact — publicly — the sooner the public will respect us for it. Your thoughts? Disagree? Let’s debate in comments…
Adds Jason DeRusha in comments: “It’s tricky…. A tweet is not a letter to the editor. But (as a reporter) I shouldn’t be speaking on behalf of my newsroom. Or addressing overall complaints. I speak for myself.”