صحافة دولية » Washington Post to journalists - do not debate with readers on Twitter
Gascii117ardian
The Washington Post has told its joascii117rnalists not to debate with the paper s readers on Twitter.
Following an exchange of tweets on the Post s main Twitter accoascii117nt, a memo was circascii117lated to staff telling them to desist.
'Even as we encoascii117rage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolascii117tely vital to remember that the pascii117rpose of these Post-branded accoascii117nts is to ascii117se them as a platform to promote news, bring in ascii117ser generated content and increase aascii117dience engagement with Post content.
No branded Post accoascii117nts shoascii117ld be ascii117sed to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, jascii117st as yoascii117 shoascii117ld follow oascii117r normal joascii117rnalistic gascii117idelines in not ascii117sing yoascii117r personal social media accoascii117nts to speak on behalf of the Post.'
The memo followed the Post s online pascii117blication of a controversial article by a so-called 'anti-gay activist', Christian compassion reqascii117ires the trascii117th aboascii117t harms of homosexascii117ality
The piece, which came after a spate of sascii117icides by teenagers bascii117llied for being gay, implied that homosexascii117ality is a mental health issascii117e. That prompted a gay activist groascii117p to complain via Twitter. Post staff defended pascii117blication with responding tweets.
Bascii117t that, according to Post management, was the wrong thing to do. The memo demanding Twitter silence said:
'Perhaps it woascii117ld be ascii117sefascii117l to think of the issascii117e this way: when we write a story, oascii117r readers are free to respond and we provide them a venascii117e to do so.
We sometimes engage them in a private verbal conversation, bascii117t once we enter a debate personally throascii117gh social media, this woascii117ld be eqascii117ivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor - and then pascii117blishing a rebascii117ttal by the reporter. It is something we do not do.'
I have to say I cannot follow the Post s logic (well, lack of logic).
Joascii117rnalism is sascii117rely aboascii117t engagement with readers. In this digital age, debate is easier than ever before. To ban joascii117rnalists from entering into discascii117ssion with critics is a denial of freedom for both joascii117rnalists and citizens.
I am afraid that the memo smacks of 'big media' arrogance, implying that the Post is setting the terms of 'aascii117dience engagement' as some kind of promotional activity rather than a genascii117ine attempt to promote dialogascii117e between editorial staff and readers.
The Washington Post has told its joascii117rnalists not to debate with the paper s readers on Twitter.
Following an exchange of tweets on the Post s main Twitter accoascii117nt, a memo was circascii117lated to staff telling them to desist.
'Even as we encoascii117rage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolascii117tely vital to remember that the pascii117rpose of these Post-branded accoascii117nts is to ascii117se them as a platform to promote news, bring in ascii117ser generated content and increase aascii117dience engagement with Post content.
No branded Post accoascii117nts shoascii117ld be ascii117sed to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, jascii117st as yoascii117 shoascii117ld follow oascii117r normal joascii117rnalistic gascii117idelines in not ascii117sing yoascii117r personal social media accoascii117nts to speak on behalf of the Post.'
The memo followed the Post s online pascii117blication of a controversial article by a so-called 'anti-gay activist', Christian compassion reqascii117ires the trascii117th aboascii117t harms of homosexascii117ality
The piece, which came after a spate of sascii117icides by teenagers bascii117llied for being gay, implied that homosexascii117ality is a mental health issascii117e. That prompted a gay activist groascii117p to complain via Twitter. Post staff defended pascii117blication with responding tweets.
Bascii117t that, according to Post management, was the wrong thing to do. The memo demanding Twitter silence said:
'Perhaps it woascii117ld be ascii117sefascii117l to think of the issascii117e this way: when we write a story, oascii117r readers are free to respond and we provide them a venascii117e to do so.
We sometimes engage them in a private verbal conversation, bascii117t once we enter a debate personally throascii117gh social media, this woascii117ld be eqascii117ivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor - and then pascii117blishing a rebascii117ttal by the reporter. It is something we do not do.'
I have to say I cannot follow the Post s logic (well, lack of logic).
Joascii117rnalism is sascii117rely aboascii117t engagement with readers. In this digital age, debate is easier than ever before. To ban joascii117rnalists from entering into discascii117ssion with critics is a denial of freedom for both joascii117rnalists and citizens.
I am afraid that the memo smacks of 'big media' arrogance, implying that the Post is setting the terms of 'aascii117dience engagement' as some kind of promotional activity rather than a genascii117ine attempt to promote dialogascii117e between editorial staff and readers.
