And Another Thing: Those Dumb Social Media Guidelines For Journalists Are Going To Paint A Target On Their Backs
from the unintended-consequences dept
Just last week we discussed the alarming trend in media companies for putting in place restrictive social media policies for their employees, including their opinion commentators. In that post, we focused on how this move is both dumb and bad for two reasons. First, restricting the opinions of those followed by the public for their opinions is flatly nonsensical. Second, the goal of these policies -- to have the public view companies as non-partisan -- is simply a fantasy in these hyper-partisan times. Nobody is going to decide that the New York Times or Wall Street Journal are suddenly bastions of non-partisanship simply because either muzzled its staff.
But there is another negative consequence of these policies that the original post didn't touch: it paints a target on the backs of the employees it governs. Because of, again, hyper-partisanship that has reached true trolling levels, these social media policies will be wielded like a cudgel by every trollish dissenter that doesn't like a particular media outlet. The New York Times, for example, is already having to endure this.
This is the same twerp who tried to get me fired for making fun of Milo. pic.twitter.com/nsLkUco6sG
— Asher Langton (@AsherLangton) November 7, 2017
You can see what I mean. Because of a social media policy looking to strip anything that might even appear partisan from the social media output of its employees, the New York Times has given true partisans a weapon to wield. A weapon, I might add, vague enough to be a perfect weapon for trollish behavior. When a pair of quotation marks around a word can be used to threaten someone's employment, particularly when the person threatening has a history of contacting the employers of journalists, we have a problem.
The solution to this is quite simple. Any media property, conservative or liberal, that is contacted by someone like this bitching about partisan reporting, should have but one response for that person: shove off. Particularly in the realm of opinion politics, cries of bias have reached the level of wolf-crying. It's expected, it means nothing, and it is easily ignored. Again, I mean for that to apply to both sides of the political aisle.
But the social media policy disrupts the New York Times' ability to flick away the concerns of a partisan booger. Because of the policy, the booger must be heard and, I imagine, the booger's claims must be validated or invalidated. That, in case it wasn't clear, is fairly stupid and counterproductive.
Stop arming boogers, media companies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, social media, social media guidelines
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's OK.
All that's left is an impostor baring the NYT's name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wheaton's Law
Surely applies to both the media and the whiners.
Wheaton's Law for those who don't want to google it:
"Don't be a dick!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should think it applies to reporters as well, I mean, they are human, with human emotions, and human opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The BBC writer only mentions Trump characterizations of Kim as intelligent for being able to survive in a violent government.
The writer never mentions it is Trump's plan to rein Kim in. Or that Trump says Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations should have done something earlier.
The story ends up being a great example of a biased journalist being allowed to pass slanted news.. The original video interview is embedded in the story. The first 59 seconds trashes what the writer spews.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39764834
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The former is conjecture and the latter is irrelevant to his quoted statements about Kim Jong-Un.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a not-so-smart cookie would say: "Sad!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ban all use of social media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love that the bias is on full display today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love that the bias is on full display today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love that the bias is on full display today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love that the bias is on full display today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love that the bias is on full display today
As hilarious as something like that would be it sounds just a tiny bit too insane to take at face value, so got any links to back it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just out of curiosity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's even worse is making excuses for the grotesque behavior of people, and it's not just some politicians. This is disgusting at a level I have not seen - ever, and I am not young.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is disgusting at a level I have not seen - ever, and I am not young.
You must not have been paying much attention. It's just louder with fewer syllables now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No - I had not seen this sort of "support" aka making excuses for these offenses by so many people before simply because of .... idk - why do they do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is actually a result of a twofold problem. One part is as stated in the post. The other part is the prior mistake of giving equal weight to well considered and explicated opinions or facts, and repetitive, loud, and illucid whingeing and pontificating. (Not to say that those with less ability to express themselves necessarily don't have valid ideas or experience.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them be stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them be stupid.
Grr. I'm baked and learning to type in dvorak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Oh, sorry, my mistake. Both are editorial writers that will pretend they are truly educated in this topic. So let's all treat their words as enlightening anyways, big round of applause!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again stop allowing social media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again stop allowing social media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]