Staci D. Kramer, posting on PaidContent.org about Washington Posts’ new social networking policy and really, personal freedoms for reporters/journalists, comments on what impact the policy will have. I can sum it up pretty quickly.
When journalistic organizations control the conversation, they control what information is available. It is done for various reasons, like to limit harm to the brand, but I think it is mainly to limit exposure to various political issues. In trying to reflect on this, it becomes confusing to describe. For instance, what is the impact of a journalist saying on their personal twitter page that they don’t believe in the holocaust? Will it harm the entire newspaper as an organization? Just the reporter? How about the impact on the respectability of the editor(s) of the paper? Or that the journalist is even employed? Will advertisers stop purchasing spots? Could it lead to someone or multiple persons being fired?
All of that is potentially going to happen. When a connection is made between journalist and organization, the journalist and organization must work together to protect each other. There is a particular focus on being critical of a newspaper/organization, at least, being publicly critical. There is not need to publicly question the newspaper unless it is a public policy matter. That decision is a personal one, a legal one, and overall, an ethical one.
Kramer links to the WaPo Ombudsman Andrew Alexander, who discusses the elements of the decision, primarily it seems, due to Twitter. A site that has both personal, and professional elements. People tweet about their daily lives, their professional experiences, and everything before and after their day starts. But certain tweets do something else… they cause turmoil.
In the examples given by Alexander, I think the key factor is that they are about stories. Should you be able to sum up a story in 140 characters, or a short series of them, what is the point of going to your newspapers site or purchasing a newspaper?
And that is what my title is all about. If you control the means by which news is discovered, like a pay firewall for newspapers that Murdoch wants to put up, or the AP solution which won’t work… you control enlightenment, information, knowledge, however you want to put it. But, as I’ve been saying, you can’t stop the dispersal of knowledge. Once a person knows, unless they are horribly unethical and making a huge profit or protecting some interest to get an advantage, they will invariably tell someone. How do we know?
Tweets… Alexander uses the example ““Sen Byrd (91) in hospital after he falls from ‘standing up too quickly.” which is meaningless to anyone really, but to the sender, it builds credibility. The information was first and foremost presented by the Twitter accounts owner before anyone else. He scooped the story, sent it out on Twitter in 140 characters and reduced the impact of a full story about it.
Killing social network interaction saves the profits of the newspaper, and that is what the WaPo policy protects above all, in my opinion. Let conversation happen.