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.
Filed Under: journalism, social media, social media guidelines
Comments on “And Another Thing: Those Dumb Social Media Guidelines For Journalists Are Going To Paint A Target On Their Backs”
That's OK.
After all, the NYT has always been pretty stupid and counterproductive.
Re: That's OK.
Not always, but the NYT that fought all the way to the SCOTUS for the right to publish the Pentagon Papers is long dead today.
All that’s left is an impostor baring the NYT’s name.
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!"
Should think it applies to reporters as well, I mean, they are human, with human emotions, and human opinions.
cant think why they did that?
The media needs to start regulating itself. A good example is the April 30,2017 BBC story, “Donald Trump: N Korea’s Kim Jong-un a ‘smart cookie'” The story is derived from a CBS ‘Face the Nation’ interview of Trump.
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
Re: Re:
The former is conjecture and the latter is irrelevant to his quoted statements about Kim Jong-Un.
Re: Re:
Wow, this is really the best you could come up with?
As a not-so-smart cookie would say: “Sad!”
Just ban all use of social media
Problem solved if people want to troll let them do it in the comments section.. Oh that’s right many of these places no longer have one
I love that the bias is on full display today
Now that we know the 4th estate has become the mouthpiece for the other 3 estates, we can ignore them. The fact that Donna Brazile, while working for CNN gives debate questions to Hillary should show that it is time for new media. Also, go to YouTube and search for reporters being sad after realizing Trump won the election. On the one hand it is hilarious to see their reactions but on the other it is sad to see the media is so biased that they have dropped all pretense now.
Re: I love that the bias is on full display today
The Breitbart comments are that way.
Re: I love that the bias is on full display today
She lost, get over it.
Re: Re: I love that the bias is on full display today
It was both funny and very, very revealing when, a week or two ago, several right-wing politicians and pundits kept complaining about the current “Clinton administration” and the lack of focus on the dastardly deeds of “President [Hillary] Clinton”…
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?
Just out of curiosity...
Is the title intended to be a Douglas Adams reference?
Yes, by all means – let’s nit pick the news for any bias against “our people” while ignoring the transgressions of same … because reasons.
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.
Re: 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.
Re: Re: Re:
Protecting child abuse, rape, pedo …. ?
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?
It’s funny watching who goes on about bias the most.
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.)
Let them be stupid.
So, the mainstream media is digging themselves into an even deeper hole. As a result, we may see experience 1) a minor reduction in stupidity on Twitter, or 2) an exodus of Twitter-addicted SJWs from the mainstream media. I’m having trouble seeing this as a bad thing.
Re: Let them be stupid.
s/experience//
Grr. I’m baked and learning to type in dvorak.
I don't know
It’s kind of funny to see the media’s tactics used against them.
“Tonight on the programme we have a world renowned expert on the topic. And, in the interest of balance, we have someone who has no idea.”
Re: 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!"
Again stop allowing social media
This is not agreeable to people that make money for the violation of there users but is totally a good thing for anyone that is not a VC cock sucker, or you could make it clear that people that want to collect information on people on the internet are sociopaths and should be in jail.
Re: Again stop allowing social media
NURSE! NURSE!!! This one definitely needs his meds checked