Should journalists self-censor on social networking sites?

Posted by Jennifer Lush on September 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM

The Washington Post is the lastest in a series of publications to release a set of guidelines for its journalists to follow in their use of social networking websites. The move comes after a managing editor of the Post, Raju Narisetti, tweeted two messages which questioned his impartiality as a journalist.

Andrew Alexander, ombudsman for the Post, revealed the two messages raising eyebrows in his Omblog:

"We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not," read one message. "But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad."

Then another from last week: "Sen Byrd (91) in hospital after he falls from 'standing up too quickly." How about term limits. Or retirement age. Or commonsense to prevail."

Alexander writes : 'In today's hyper-sensitive political environment, Narisetti's tweets could be seen as one of the Post's top editors taking sides on the question of whether a health-care reform plan must be budget neutral. On Byrd, his comments could be construed as favoring term limits or mandatory retirement for aging lawmakers. Many readers already view The Post with suspicion and believe that the personal views of its reporters and editors influence the coverage. The tweets could provide ammunition.'

Though Narisetti was using his private Twitter account, and stressed the messages were 'personal observations' intended to be read by some 90 friends and associates, he said he now realises that his tweets were 'unwise' and that his opinions reflected on his position as managing editor of the Post.

He has since closed his Twitter account.

The following day, Milton Coleman, Senior Editor of the Post, sent a memo containing a new set of guidelines for it's journalists in regard to their personal use of social networking websites.

The memo stated that : 'We must remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists', and that, '[we must] relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens.'

'Post journalists must recognize that any content associated with them in an online social network is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of what appears beneath their bylines in the newspaper or on our website.'

Concerned with 'tarnishing' the publication's reputation and journalistic credibility, the memo warned against publicy publishing anything racist, opinionated, political, sexist, religious or bias. Affilition with any social advocacy group, and 'accepting virtual gifts from political or partisan' causes, were also listed as things to avoid.

The Post is not the first to release such a set of guidelines. In 2008 the BBC similarly expressed it's worries over staff's personal pages bringing the BBC brand into disrepute, and the Wall Street Journal distributed a set of 'dos and donts' to it's staff in May.

Craig Whitney, The New York Times' assistant managing editor, raised questions over who staff should accepts as 'friends' and whether it was acceptable to write about them. In January he wrote: 'Should we avoid consenting to be Facebook "friends" of people in the news we cover? Mostly no, but the answer can depend on the situation. A useful way to think about this is to imagine whether public disclosure of a "friend" could somehow turn out to be an embarrassment that casts doubt on our impartiality. It would not have looked good in the presidential election campaign for a national political reporter to agree to be a "friend" of Barack Obama without first making sure to be a "friend" of John McCain, too .'

So should journalists zip their lips and self-censor what they write in their own time, on their own pages in order to sheild their personal biases from the public and protect the reputations of the publications they write for ?

The Editoral Board at Statepress would argue no. In a blog responding to The Washington Post's recent guidelines, it stressed that people have biases, and journalists are people too. 'Biases are based on everything from upbringing to education to experiences, and no amount of journalistic integrity can take those biases away. While it is important as a journalist to approach reporting and writing from neutral ground, it's silly to think that means biases can just be wiped away.'

Statepress go on to suggest that perhaps a journalist's personal social networking page could be the key to boosting confidence in mainstream media, offering greater transparency to the public and allowing them to judge for themselves where a journalist's prejudices might lie. These in mind, they can take or leave what they like from the articles they read.

Above all, however, aren't journalists and their opinions as valuable to society as those of the next doctor, engineer, teacher etc ? Perhaps their opinions could be considered even more valuable, as 'after all, who knows more about a local high school than the reporter who writes about it every day?'

Source: Omblog, paidContent, Statepress