Case 4-C
Twitter Ethics for Journalists: Can You Scoop Yourself?
Macro Issues
The conversation discussing the distinguishing of
journalists’ personal and professional social media accounts is a tricky one.
Personally, I think that if you are a journalist and are using social media is
a core part of your job duties, you should strongly consider not using it in your personal life;
especially if you’re only going to be posting the same type of content you
would for your work purposes. If your
going to have separate accounts, let them truly
be separate and post vacation photos, not breaking news.
The case study doesn’t mention whether Schlesinger’s editor
had a positive or negative reaction to being “scooped”. But, I wouldn’t be upset
or put off by it. Ultimately, Schlesinger is an employee of Reuters – not to
mention, he’s the EIC – I wouldn’t have a problem “re-tweeting” posts from his
personal account. At that level of management, many of the personal aspects of
his life are governed by his involvement at Reuters.
If Schlesinger had been a freelancer, it would have been a
different case. A freelance is not at the same level as the Editor-in-Chief.
His or her allegiance to the organization is not as pronounced as the
Editor-in-Chief’s. Therefore, Reuters scooping one of their freelancer’s tweets
would have just been a money issue, not a journalistic integrity one.
Midrange Issues
Social media has forever changed the nature of news. It has
particularly changed the functions in which news is collected and disseminated.
Twitter was one of the primer social media sites that news organizations
flocked to to disseminate their information. It was an innovative and powerful
tool in its early days. But as the flood of Twitter users have changed the
“culture” of the online medium, news reporters and organizations have little
resistance in staying biased if they are going to use Twitter as an information
gathering tool or as a means to distribute information. Opinion seems to rule
social media. That leaves little room of objectivity, the same objectivity the
news was founded on. But some would argue that most things must adapt to survive. So it is possible that the news’
gradual shift toward becoming less objective and more immediate and sensational
is a necessary tool of survival.
Many times large news organizations do not pay attention to
the fotter that is written about them online. It’s only if the accusation
becomes “viral” or poses a risk of effecting the company’s image or profitability
that you will see an organization will respond. I don’t think it’s necessary to
put energy into specific guidelines about how to respond to criticisms online.
Twitter has many uses; promoting things is one of those
functions. In that context, it’s appropriate to use it for the “promotion” of
news.
Macro Issues
The reason news has had to adapt to social media’s pace and
personal nature is because audiences are becoming increasingly more aware of
what they want. The changing demands of the audience make social networking
sites the perfect place for journalists to communicate news. Some of the concepts supported by Ross’s
duties that are support my claims are reparation and beneficence. The first
concept allows media companies to make quick apologies. Therefore meeting the
culture’s need to for instant gratification. A similar thing can be said for
beneficence since most people feel that the more readily available information
is the better of they are as informed citizens.
My friends are universal more concerned with getting
credible news then getting news “first”. One person said they go online to do
further research into issues, rather then to stay abreast of the news. This
information surprised me. I thought today’s generation would like to have
things fast. But, what we are noticing is that fast is not always best, or even
reliable. So, my friends want to know ultimately, who they can trust to give
them accurate news.
No comments:
Post a Comment