WaPo’s Social Media Guidelines: Bad News for International Media Development
"Last Conversation Piece". Courtesy of joelogon.
I understand why The Washington Post would want to come up with the social media guidelines they recently set for their journalists that greatly constrain their use of social media. At least, I think I do.
They want to remain a reputable source of objective news (if objective news is even possible). And, they’d like to discourage the potential for their journalists to go “rogue” with their opinions and personal lives such that it could digitally be traced back to WaPo, and damage that reputation. Understandable. Social media are still kind of in their “Wild West” phase, and the technology makes it MUCH easier to publish online than to consider the implications of publishing online. Definitely a recipe for potential disaster in an industry in which reputation can be everything.
However, there are implications of instituting the guidelines they chose that could dramatically impact the future of media in a very negative way.
Sure, there’s the question of whether or not this violates the First Amendment rights of journalists (speech, press, petition, religion, assembly—all five are impacted by these guidelines). Does WaPo really have a right to restrict a journalist’s participation in an advocacy group, for instance? Probably. The First Amendment applies to the government, not private corporations. Still, even if it is allowed, it doesn’t mean it is okay.
If I’m WaPo journalist X, and I am a supporter of, say, Committee to Protect Journalists, are you saying I can’t “become a fan” of CPJ on Facebook or say even a “hello” on CPJ’s wall? If WaPo can restrict this, can they also restrict me from having a CPJ sticker on my car, or even mentioning my agreement with CPJ in public? After all, someone could easily record my conversation from the next table over, and upload it to the Internet, thanks to the wonders of today’s digital technology. Am I not allowed to donate to CPJ? What if THAT gets out?
I don’t usually like to play the slippery slope game, but I am afraid I have to in this case. Especially given the implications abroad.
United States organizations and government agencies have long been among the top international media developers in developing countries. And, our news media have often been a model that news media in developing countries have looked up to. Especially news media like The New York Times and theWashington Post.
If WaPo’s position as an industry leader pushes others to follow this social media lead, what could that mean for the international media development money flowing out of our country, and the example our media set?
Why would this be such a bad thing?
Social media, as we have seen so far, are most interesting and engaging when people share their views and reactions, as if they are having, well, a conversation. They are SOCIAL media, after all. And most people don’t sit around having conversations that are just an exchange of objective news report.
WaPo’s social media guidelines very clearly place tremendous constraints on the ability for its journalists to truly engage people through social media, because they will not be able to use them in an engaging way. Chances are, these guidelines will probably just discourage its journalists from even using them altogether.
Now think about this in the context of developing countries. So many of them are governed by military dictatorships, or at the very least, authoritarian systems that go to great lengths to discourage any form of public expression, participation, and citizen engagement, if they don’t outright crush them. Development funding directed at these countries tends to toward advocating for legal reform and promoting, well, public expression, participation, and citizen engagement. A lot of THAT money is going into media development, particularly involving news media. News media have long been seen as primary tools for promoting these things in democratic and independent societies, after all.
As I’ve pretty frequently blogged about, Ukraine has a culture that is still evolving out of its Soviet past of total media control by the government and rampant humiliation (and worse) of those who dared to speak up. In my years of work there, I still see prevalence among many of the people I worked with of fear to express oneself publicly with the same kind of fearlessness we enjoy in America (assuming, of course, that our fearlessness in America is a good thing).
In June and July, I was training journalists how to use social media to engage their audiences, to share their views, to add a human side to their work. The whole reason that news media are hemorrhaging audiences to social media is because their dead, boring, “objective” news is simply not as engaging as social media content. If these journalists want to continue to attract new audiences, and keep their current ones, they would have to become more engaging. And social media are the perfect tools for this.
All WaPo’s social media guidelines are going to do is give journalists in places like Ukraine one more reason to be afraid to use social media socially, and express themselves publicly, in an engaging way.
Think of Iran, and the tremendous Internet filtering and censorship that go on there every day. All WaPo’s social media guidelines do is affirm Iranian authoritarianism. Authorities can say to opponents of media censorship in Iran, “See, they do it at The Washington Post“.
Then think of what journalists might be able to do to deliver information to the public, that it has a right to know, in a place like Nigeria, where government and corporate pressures squash any real reporting on the oil industry, banks, or multinational corporations that are basically stealing from the public. Maybe nothing. But are these WaPo guidelines really going to help us find out?
These issues I’ve raised in Ukraine, Iran, and Nigeria apply, some or all, to much of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and parts of Africa. Likely more regions. These are the only ones I’ve studied at length. I could go on about these regions, with more examples, but I’ll save the post length for another time.
Instead of telling journalists they couldn’t be human beings on social media, why not require them to post a PROMINENT disclaimer saying that their views are their own and in no way represent WaPo’s. And then periodically take additional steps to MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.
Sadly, that is not the decision WaPo made. They chose to go the road that says to the world, “It’s okay to censor your journalists on social media, it’s okay to discourage them from promoting real transparency, it’s okay to discourage the many potential societal benefits of social media in the name of protecting our business”. In the developing world, far too many news media already protect their businesses at the expense of social benefits. Just what they need is more disincentive to change this practice.
Boo, WaPo. Boo.
Related Posts
- The Truth of a Colombian Taxi Driver
- Divided Country Sobers Up to Go to the Polls
- Video: ICT and Development Panel
- Video: eDiplomacy Ushers In a New Culture of Collaboration at State
More from this author
- How DO we make policy in the digital age?
- WaPo’s Social Media Guidelines: Bad News for International Media Development
- MediaNext: Training Facebook in the Land of Vkontakte
- MediaNext: Convincing Skeptics of Twitter’s Power in Ukraine
Subscribe to this author
While it may be unfortunate that WaPo reporters are now restricted in what they say on their personal social media sites, I think that you ascribe too much importance or authority to the role that social media DOES play in the world and SHOULD play in the realm of journalism.
You said that the news media is “hemorrhaging audiences to social media.” Yes, readership and viewership for many traditional media outlets is decreasing and usage of social media is increasing. This strikes me as more of a correlation than a causation. How many people really read Facebook in lieu of the Washington Post?
You talk about how social media can help journalists get feedback from the citizenry. This may also be the case, but connections made over social media should never replace real reporting and real interviews. Because the authenticity of online communication with unknown people who may be misrepresenting themselves and their motives is never clear, journalists would probably want to refrain from anything more than getting a lead from an online person that can be followed-up on. Reports made up of comments from social media and blog postings will be just that – comments and blog postings.
Restrictions on reporters’ social media activities don’t totally preclude using social media online. Take a look at the NY Times Moscow Livejournal blog (in Russian), which they use to solicit the comments of Russians on upcoming articles about Russia that will appear in the NY Times. In this case, the Times has channeled Russia’s online audience to see what Russian’s think about their reporting. Perhaps this is a good model for media usage of social media technologies?
Matthew, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I’ll try to succinctly respond to your main points.
“You ascribe too much importance or authority to the role that social media DOES play in the world and SHOULD play in the realm of journalism.”
Well, that’s possible. What I do know is that there is tremendous pressure against journalists in much of the rest of the world NOT to report. And, much of that world lives in societies that go to great lengths to oppress public expression, the free flow of information, and political and commercial transparency. Social media facilitate openness and the flow of information in ways that Web 1.0 websites, and traditional media can’t. So, if the role of a journalist is to inform the public and promote transparency, and social media are among the best tools for doing that, then, well, I’m going to stand behind my contention that they are important”.
“Yes, readership and viewership for many traditional media outlets is decreasing and usage of social media is increasing. This strikes me as more of a correlation than a causation”.
Well, even if it IS a correlation, and not a causation, the data show that online audiences are growing in leaps and bounds on social media, and disintegrating for news media. But, that doesn’t mean news media shouldn’t embrace social media. If you want an audience, you go where the audience IS, not where it ISN’T. Social media make it possible for news media to still reach those audiences. I personally have fanned and follow a bunch (NYTIMES, Economist, AP) on social media. They send me links to their articles. I choose the ones I want to click, as I also see what my friends are up to. It’s not about causality, it’s about taking advantage of an opportunity to go where the audience is going. Those that are utilizing these media are still getting clicks, those that don’t are getting fewer. I’m not saying people are reading Facebook in lieu of WaPo. But, their attention is increasingly ON Facebook. So, if WaPo’s strategy were to just stick to newstands and its website, well, it would lose audience. Gotta go where the eyeballs are.
But, a deeper look, we must ask why are social media gaining and news media losing audiences? Well, blogging, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, have become increasingly popular because you can actually have an exchange. You are not just a receiver of information, but a contributer. You can communicate directly with the publisher, and the audience of the publisher. I think THAT is the causal connection. People are less and less interested, on a macro level, in information they can’t interact with.
“Connections made over social media should never replace real reporting and real interviews”.
Absolutely. I firmly agree with you on this. It shouldn’t replace. But, you can test the mood and get story angles from this. Also, the culture on social media today is to share what you deem to be useful information. So, you can get a lot of links to related stories from others on social media. You can use people as your researchers, essentially. You don’t have time to search for more information than you have time for. But, if you follow the right people, you can get a lot of links without all the Googling, for instance. And, if you find someone is consistently sending you useless stuff, you can communicate directly with that person, and ask if he/she has anything, should you need information. You’d be surprised–people really like to know that their information is useful to you. This isn’t a replacement by any means, it’s just another means that can make your job easier, and help people feel engaged in the process of news and the flow of information.
But all of this assumes that the job of news media is to connect people to information. The reality is, the job of news media has, unfortunately, been staying in business, selling ads, and trying to turn a profit, more than it has been first and foremost about informing the public. At least lately, and in America, particularly.
The NY Times in Moscow example you have offered is definitely a good model. What I am saying about WaPo is that it isn’t offering a good model because it focuses mainly on what isn’t a good model, rather than what is. The problem for me is not that WaPo is restricting its journalists, per se, but that it is mostly restricting its journalists by offering them little to know social use of “social media”, and thus mostly discouragement from using them, in my opinion. Perhaps this won’t stop them. But, for the rest of the news media world, this is incentive to follow the suit of one of America’s most famous news media outlets.
In international development, there are billions of dollars being spent to promote participation. Participation is seen as a good thing. Participation is not strictly good, but it CAN be good. Especially in places like the former Soviet Union, where there has historically been very little public participation, and a LOT of disincentive for participation. Social media promote participation. Certainly they can promote the wrong kind of participation. But they promote participation, nonetheless, in ways that nothing else can. We can actually see that participation over here in the States. That’s powerful.
I’m just trying to keep an eye on the big picture. My work is in trying to promote information flow and participation through media to promote things like independence, economic development, democracy, and just generally making the world a better place for those who have less access to information and resources. I feel that WaPo’s guidelines work against that.
Regardless, I thank you for raising these important points. Conversations like this need to happen. In public, no less.