Reuters‘ David Schlesinger
Reuters editor-in-chief David Schlesinger sent a memo to staffers on July 8 with the subject line “How Social Media Impacts Your Professional Life,” suggesting new rules for journalists’ private expressions of opinion. So far, the memo seems to have only been discussed on a German language media blog (Ruhr Barone, 7/22/10).
Jumping off from the cases of Dave Weigel and Octavia Nasr, who had to leave jobs at WashingtonPost.com and CNN, respectively, after their online communication became controversial, Schlesinger declares that “in a linked and searchable world, your online persona can reflect on how or even whether you can do your job.” The editor writes: “If you give people cause or reason to doubt your ability to be a fair and objective journalist, that will necessarily impact on our ability to give you assignments or allow you on the file.”
He then lays down in a series of bullet points “some lines we can draw”—and most of them are more or less common sense. Like, “Don’t start or get involved in flame wars”—does anyone think that journalists hurling insults online is a good idea? Or, “Remember that the published word lasts forever”—that’s self-evident. And “be prepared to stand behind what you say” is good advice for anyone.
One of the bulleted points seems rather broad, however: “Don’t compromise your objectivity privately if you still want to use it professionally.” What does it mean to “compromise your objectivity”—expressing any opinion on a subject that you cover? That would seem to be a rather draconian prohibition. But if that’s not what it means, what kind of guidance is being offered here?
The memo’s emphasis on “objectivity” reminds me that Matthew Yglesias has written some insightful posts on the subject lately, reminding us that this journalistic convention arose primarily a business strategy, and it’s one that depends on some fairly odd ethical principles:
Something that pops up every time old/new media tensions emerge is the view—which I find, frankly, bizarre—common in the newspaper world that pretending to not have opinions makes your work better. One underlying presumption here is the odd notion that the ideal reporter would be someone who actually doesn’t have opinions, as if “the facts” were purely transparent and could be merely observed, processed and then regurgitated into inverted pyramid form without passing through the muck of “judgment” or “thoughts about the world.”
Then the secondary presumption is that you can somehow make things real by pretending. Like if you want to express judgments about politicians in conversations with your friends, that’s fine, but you have to never publish them…. Somehow keeping the views secret is supposed to be a close substitute for not having them. But of course having a secret is totally different from having nothing. The conceit that make-believe is just as good as the real thing only arises because the real thing is impossible to achieve. That should make you rethink why you would deem it desirable, but instead leads to the odd conclusion that the best journalist is a consistently dishonest one.
Here’s the full text of the Reuters memo:
All —
Two recent incidents in the United States have shown how hard it is to keep our social media personae separate from our professional lives.
First David Weigel had to resign from the Washington Post after inflammatory comments he made on a supposedly closed journalists’ mailing list were made public. Then, CNN fired its senior editor for Middle Eastern Affairs, Octavia Nasr, after she tweeted “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot,” a comment that immediately called into question her ability to cover her subject objectively.
Now I don’t want to get involved in other organisations’ personnel issues. But I’ve repeatedly said and believe very strongly that in a linked and searchable world, your online persona can reflect on how or even whether you can do your job.
If you give people cause or reason to doubt your ability to be a fair and objective journalist, that will necessarily impact on our ability to give you assignments or allow you on the file.
We are in the early days of social media and there is no question that the journalistic landscape is changing. But there are some lines we can draw:
* Don’t start or get involved in flame wars—arguments using heated language and personal attacks. As a journalist, rely on facts and reasoned arguments, not on invective. I don’t care how angry you might be at a person or a company or even a country; just don’t do it.
* Don’t compromise your objectivity privately if you still want to use it professionally.
* Remember that the published word lasts forever and can go everywhere. A tweet by a journalist is simply not the same as a joke shared over the dinner table.
* Anything that can be forwarded probably will be at some point, so be prepared to stand behind what you say—its content and its tone.
Thanks/das
David Schlesinger
Editor In Chief, Reuters
Much more objectionable than this memo is Thomas Friedman’s column where he tries to play good cop and bad cop at the same time in regards to Nasr’s firing. According to him, no she didn’t deserve to be fired for speaking her mind, but a suspension is in order. Why? Because this is an unusual thing for her. Were she to speak her mind all the time, well, we can’t have that, can we?
I heard Howard Kurtz however took a different position, saying that openly admitting your opinions was beneficial. Let’s see how long he keeps his job!
David Schlesinger should exemplify first , Reuters jourmalists felt that you has been compromised by Tom Glocer as well as Devin Wenig .
David Schlesinger,you should do understand that Reuters has zero integrity as well as BIAS.
Reuters is just to spread lies sound truthful.
â┚¬Ã…“Impactâ┚¬Ã‚ makes such a terrible verb. I find it not the least bit â┚¬Ã…“impactful.â┚¬Ã‚Â
What bothers me is when a reporters opinion makes it into the body of the story seems to indicate a reflection of the editor’s opinion more than the reporter’s. For example, one reporter might write that the President seemed relaxed and congenial during his speech to autoworkers yesterday, another might write that the President seemed to downplay the importance of unemployment during his speech by making jokes and getting into cars for photo ops.
When these stories make it down to the local newspaper, which story an editor chooses to publish is more a reflection of his opinion than that of the individual writer. But if the reporter doesn’t “juice it up” it won’t get published anyway. Where do you go from there?
Reuters’ editor-in-chief did not acknowledge the difference between news and social media. There are different missions for two very different mediums. One is for news and the other is for chatting. I hope some other news chief makes the distinction between news and tweets.
Columnists are paid to give their opinions. Ideally, journalists assigned to reporting the news are not. That said, it is impossible for an individual’s worldview not to creep into a story through word choice, phrasing, angle and what they elect to include in a story — or not. We see it consistently from Reuters, AP and every other media on a daily basis.
An individual cannot truly separate herself from her experience, education and known truths. To pretend otherwise is just naive. And, should separation be the end goal? If so, who is the objectivity judge than can deem an in-depth analytical or investigative report that goes beyond straight facts as “objective?”
If a reporter covers a beat for decades, becoming an expert on the topic — whether its foreign affairs, politics, health care or education — why should they hide these known truths in an informal setting, even if they are counter to anther’s beliefs? No doubt Octavia Nasr knew things about Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah we did not since most Americans had never heard of him before she offered the infamous tweet that got her fired.
We have, of course, the technical ability to create news articles though a computer. Insert pure facts and let the program spill out an article. It would be devoid of opinion as well as insight, and likely unreadable. I don’t think anyone wants THAT. We want the reporter to have some deeper knowledge on the topic they are covering.
Journalists should be allowed to express opinions, as long as they keep them on Twitter and private list serve postings as the two recently fired individuals had done. I have a bigger concern with the growing number of “news blogs” that all traditional media have co-opted in order to keep some ad money that has been usurped by bloggers that opine on the news.
Perhaps CNN, WaPo, etc, having gone to the Twitter and Facebook trough too often for “news” (a la Sarah Palin’s polarizing opinions, BrietBart’s fabricated videos), have confused their mission with what social networks do! News versus chat.
In general, in the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) conservative opinions which follow the conservative talking points are not subject to any kind of disciplinary actions by editors and owners. Liberal opinions? Better stick to opinion columns. Period. Those are not allowed in “pure reporting” articles; conservative opinions often are not accepted but reported as fact or accepted opinion. Meh.
David Schuster was fired from MSNBC over something he tweeted or said. I am not sure what. He was someone I enjoyed watching.
It isn’t fair to say reporters can’t have their own opinions and must be completely impartial. But hiding it would be deceitful too. The best idea would be to not buy into the far left or right views and try to be impartial in writing.