Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Social Media Guidelines Renew "Transparency" Debate

By Andy Alexander

The Post’s recently issued guidelines governing participation in social media have renewed a spirited debate in the industry about the level of transparency by journalists.

The policies are restrictive in that they caution Post reporters and editors against writing anything on social networks such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace or LinkedIn that might be seen as showing bias or taking sides in public debates. The rationale is that The Post will achieve maximum credibility on its news pages through maintaining neutrality.

But there are a number of respected journalists who believe otherwise and argue that that if journalists shared their views on subjects they cover, readers would trust them more.

One of them is Dan Gillmor, a provocative expert on new media at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. We hold different views; I’m a traditionalist on neutrality and endorse the intent of The Post’s guidelines. But in researching last Sunday’s column on social media, I had several exchanges with Dan and thought his views were stimulating about the entire question of newsroom transparency. Here are passages from a lengthy e-mail he sent me, which eventually became a post on his Mediactive blog:

“Transparency takes several forms. I strongly believe that news organizations have a duty to explain to their audiences how they do their journalism, and why. Even the organizations that claim to have no world view should be telling people the 'how' -- though too few do -- because they'd help readers/viewers/listeners/etc. understand what it takes to do good journalism, assuming they actually do good journalism. It baffles me that an industry that wants to be perceived as better than the newcomers to the craft doesn't grasp this, but it clearly doesn't.

“The 'why' is more nuanced, especially for big organizations (at least in America). The best journalistic bloggers are much more open on this; their world views and motivations are typically crystal clear, and their audiences, even people who disagree with those world views, can refract their own understanding of the topics through those lenses.

“I wish U.S. news organizations would drop the pretense of being impartial and having no world view. There's no conflict with having a world view and doing great journalism. When I go to London I buy the Guardian and the Telegraph. Both do excellent journalism. The Guardian covers the world from a slightly left-of-center standpoint, and the Telegraph from a slightly right-of-center stance. I read both and figure I'm triangulating on the essence of (British establishment) reality. Even if I read just one, the paper's overt stance gives me a better way to understand what's happening than if it pretended to be impartial. And -- crucially -- both of them run articles (and lots of op-eds) that either directly challenge their world views or, more routinely, include facts and context that runs contrary to what the editors and proprietors might wish was true. Relentless journalism's independence of thought means, in particular, being willing or even eager to learn why your core assumptions could be wrong.

“The Post had a profoundly obvious world view during the run-up to the Iraq War: pro-administration, pro-war, period. No one really denies that anymore. I'm guessing that great editors would have done a better job of covering the opposing views (and facts) if the paper's world view had been stated as a matter of policy. )

“When it comes to individual views and specifics about individual reporters and editors, I grant that this does get a bit more tricky. I'm not suggesting you post reporters' tax returns. I would suggest that when something they are, or believe, might be relevant to a reader that it's OK, and maybe important, to let the reader know. (A religion reporters' faith, as in what religion or sect he follows [or absence of faith, for that matter] seems relevant to me.)

“And I'd strongly suggest that while a random opinion or quip might be bothersome, letting journalists be human beings would have a better outcome in the end. Telling staff to hide all opinions doesn't cause readers to trust you more. It tells them you're hiding something, because they aren't stupid.”

Blogger Steve Buttry, the former editor of The Gazette and GazetteOnline in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, also believes greater transparency by journalists can result in greater credibility. “I share some uneasiness with the opinionated nature of a lot of (Twitter) tweets,” he said in an interview. While not endorsing “sharp partisan opinions,” he believes credibility can be enhanced when journalists tell a bit about where they’re coming from when writing about things they cover.

During his many years as Post executive editor, Leonard Downie Jr. didn’t even vote because he felt the act of casting a ballot showed a bias (albeit a private one). Marcus Brauchli, who succeeded him about a year ago, said he is registered as an independent and votes. But, like Downie, he is a traditionalist on newsroom neutrality.

“We shouldn’t lean in one direction or another direction,” Brauchli said of Post reporters and editors. In an interview, he did not criticize those who believe otherwise or who might want to position themselves somewhere on the left or right along the political spectrum. Rather, he said, “that’s not right for us.” He said it would affect access by Post reporters in Washington’s highly politicized environment, where news sources often refuse to talk to those they believe hold political beliefs contrary to their own. And, Brauchli said, being overtly partial could negatively impact The Post’s readership.

While I agree with The Post’s guidelines, I also agree with Buttry, Gillmor and others who believe the there needs to be robust internal discussion about where Post journalists should draw the line in comments on social networks. In the days immediately after the guidelines were issued, some Post staffers told me privately that the guidelines would make them more cautious in tweeting or posting to Facebook. But since then, others have said they already have developed a comfort level with the guidelines.

“I predict this will sort itself out,” media writer Howard Kurtz, an avid social media participant, said last Thursday in his “Media Notes” blog. “There was a time when newspapers were reluctant to have their reporters go on TV for fear they would say something compromising. Now they have PR departments trying to help the bookers. A year from now, this flap will seem quaint.”

Columnist Gene Weingarten, who also uses Twitter, added that the guidelines “boil down to three words: Use common sense. I have no problem with that stricture.”

“The guy who covers national politics for The Post knows perfectly well that he cannot say, in a Washington Post chat, that he thinks all Democrats are dishonest,” Weingarten said in an e-mail. “Why? Because it would undermine the credibility of anything he writes or had written, and thus embarrass the Post and open the newspaper up to charges of being biased...It's a matter of appearances, and appearances matter.

“Well, he's not a different human being when he's tweeting on Twitter. He's still a Post writer. Members of the very same public can grab what he writes on Twitter and still use it to impeach his credibility as a writer for The Post.”

“It's not an unreasonable abridgment of my right to free speech that, in return for giving me this platform, The Post expects me to publicly behave in a way that doesn't bring disrepute to the paper.”

“What the Post needs to realize -- and what I think they do realize, given the general nature of those guidelines -- is that the protocols of behavior in social media sites are not identical to the protocols of behavior in the pages of The Post,” he wrote. “These boundaries were already slightly moved a bit when the paper went online: I have said things in my chat that I would not write in The Post -- but they are not things that bring disrepute to The Post. They are things that adapted to a new platform with more freewheeling rules.”

By Andy Alexander  | October 5, 2009; 4:10 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rhee "Normalizes" Dealings With Post Reporter
Next: Why a 'Birther' Leader Is News

Comments

毒品害人
江苏省盐城市盐都县郭猛镇护西村四组蒋瑞志是我的爸爸。一九九八年四月三十日,我爸被电力捕鱼周桂平捣残左眼总共赔二万。第二年,我的妈妈葛留凤呕吐、抽筋,到医院看说是脑炎,后说是脑梗塞,妈妈出现呕吐的原因是家里吃的食物含有大量的毒品。我的奶奶腰痛吃药后,说是有高血压,到医院挂水后,奶奶不能走路了,后说有帕金森病了。“这个人过不到一年就要死了”,邻居们说。一个得了高血压的人就应该这么快死去吗?妈妈的第二次生病,到医院看说有糖尿病、癫痫病、脑梗塞。现在,妈妈骨瘦如柴、神志不清,妈妈根本没有这些病。我奶奶吐血看后,反而吐得更多,天天出汗,出院后,在家浑身疼痛,天天呕吐白沫,骨瘦如柴死。我的爸爸长时间眼睛挣不开,走路要跌伤。我月经不正常,身体全身发热。我家的粮食和棉花被偷千斤,所有的事情都被对手控制。我月经不来,不让上高中。


我二叔左胸口痛,二叔丈人癌症死。姑奶奶吐血看几天死。二怀子妻癌转移死,大怀子癌症。蒋满江妻儿癌症死。我奶奶的兄弟癌症死。证人哥哥房子烧了,侄女小宝掉水缸死。我干姐姐家小宝落水死。我妻嫂跌伤一骨未接,家中三人精神病,一人看后,有阳痿。蒋瑞虎感冒看后,乙肝病发。一人感冒打药死,二人睡觉死。蒋华妻出车祸,妹妹红斑狼疮。蒋亚妻精神病。我丈人跌伤腿骨裂,走路走不动,我妻哥哥双腿站不起来。蒋瑞虎感冒看后,乙肝病发。老姨奶奶脑梗塞,三姨奶奶女儿跌伤。老二出车祸,两手腕骨碎腿断赔千元。粮棉被偷,三亩偷掉二亩。父亲不知被杨三打的什么针死。老二办不到建房执照。蒋迎中癌症,蒋竹四糖尿病。郭乃国开两刀。葛和平外公和外婆死,老太出车祸死。

我的爸爸蒋瑞志在全国人大代表第十七次会议之前,到北京去上访,被关进龙冈精神病院了。我的妈妈骨瘦如柴,她根本没有糖尿病、癫痫病和脑梗塞,都是毒品所致。爸爸在那里,妈妈一个人在家种田,她根本种不动,对我们整个家庭来说,是多大的打击啊!以前,我爸上访被关进派出所。2008年下半年,我爸才被放出来。现在,爸爸在常州溧阳建筑工地上打工,工地上所有的人都监视着爸爸。09年国庆前几天,只付到500元,让爸爸没钱抵抗,只要爸爸到北京就会被抓回来。爸爸吃的食物中含有毒品,慢慢地将爸爸毒死。现在,爸爸的处境很不好,我也被他们监视着,难道我们全家就慢慢地被毒死吗?我到底该怎么办啊?上访者的命运真苦啊!上访这条路,让爸爸走的太辛苦了。

现在的我只希望我家的食物中不再有毒品,家人不被监视着,不再有人故意欺负我的家人,爸爸不要再走上访这条路,爸爸和妈妈能够过上好日子。关键是爸爸的对手要我的家人都死呀,爸爸不得不上访啊!我到底该怎么办啊?

Posted by: lingiait | October 5, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

The ombudsman does not seem to have any impact to correct the continuous grammatical error in prominence in the Washington Post. Notwithstanding my e-mails in the past weeks to the ombudsman and current corrections; still the same grammatical error which has graced page two of the Washington Post in the past, was still present in today's Washington Post, page two, October 4, 2009. It It is ironic that the grammatical error is made right above the column which assures readers that the Washington Post is committed to correct errors. Why are you ignoring what you profess?
.It Ït seems that this does not apply to your page 2 where you have written consistently over the past weeks that one could go online t o see who " the President has meet ..." May , I suggest that a proper English sentence, the proper wording ought to be "the President has met ... " It is regrettable that i have to read a paper where some o your editors are unable to write a proper sentence

Posted by: lejeune421 | October 6, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

At the end of the day, all you can do is try to stay positive. The numbers work out and tell a story without words. The Post was airborne at last check +3.76 (0.82%), so keep thinking up. I have 3 things that need done, so gotta run. Have a good day!

Posted by: Dermitt | October 6, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Keep patting yourself on the back about the totally trivial “social media” issue. Why not just have Post employees state on their home page that the views expressed are their personal views and do not necessarily represent that of the Washington Post?

Meanwhile, the Opinion page remains a cesspool of discredited neo-conservative opinions, plus people who have obvious possible conflicts of interest expressing an opinion without either they or the Post revealing the possible bias. Apparently, this is something that you are not even allowed to comment on, since you refer complaints to Fred Hiatt, the person many of us see as the source of the problem

Posted by: hgillette | October 7, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

So the guy who covers national politics for The Post can think all Democrats are dishonest, but cannot say it in a Washington Post chat. This policy does not give the Post any credibility. All it gives them is plausible deniability.

I do appreciate the reposting of Gillmor's point of view.

Posted by: imback | October 7, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Alexander...You cannot even get people to comment on your blog. You have a Chinese posting, an inane letter about grammar that is inanely edited, and a half dozen comments.

1. You need to stop pandering to the perceived ocean of right wing readers whose approval you servilely chase, and

2. You need to write about important issues.


You are a great succesor to Miss Howell. That is not a compliment.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | October 8, 2009 12:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company