Social media is hardly new, so you would think that by now journalists would have worked out how to use it for their vocation, and how to behave.
In fact, both in Australia and overseas a series of imbroglios, legal problems and Twitter spats show that we are all still more than a bit at sea.
The public is surely confused about what journalists stand for, and sometimes angry. It is hard to discern any consistent journalistic principles guiding the practice of media professionals on social media.
On the other hand, perhaps we should not be surprised that a new publishing platform causes such confusion. The conventions of “quality” journalism are not as old as we might think.
It took four centuries from the invention of the printing press to development of the “journal of record” principles that guided quality newspapers such as the London Times, The Guardian and the New York Times.
Those principles were worked out partly to try and distinguish those newspapers from the yellow press of their times – which was sensational, often had barely a nodding acquaintance with the facts, and certainly opinionated.
The “quality” publications wanted to distinguish themselves from the scandal sheets. They were after a better class of customer, a model citizen interested in public affairs – and whose attention advertisers were keen to obtain.
The phrase “journal of record” has been attributed to Aldolf Ochs, an early proprietor of the New York Times. Ochs established a principle of objective reporting. In Och’s words:
“It will be my earnest aim that the New York Times give the news, all the news … impartially, without fear or favour, regardless of sect, party or interest, in a clean, dignified and trustworthy manner, so that the New York Times will become known for its honesty, watchfulness, earnestness, industry and common sense.”
High ideals, that still inform that journal today – but my point is that they took centuries to work out. “Objective” reporting is a relatively new concept.
So what about this new publishing platform – social media? How should journalists behave?
In Australia, Nine political journalist Chris Uhlmann has dished out the abuse, referring to Twitter users as sewer rats, for example.
The editor of The Age, Gay Alcorn, who was a frequent user of social media before she got her current job, withdrew from social media few months ago after one story provoked a torrid Twitter storm. (She’s back now). She said at the time:
“I was hoping as editor I could continue to discuss things on Twitter but it seems not - I don’t mind criticism of the media at all. But reluctantly, am out of here.”
Other journalists share news about their children, their moods, their meals. And now journalist Louise Milligan’s Tweets are specifically mentioned in the statement of claim brought by Christian Porter in his defamation action against the ABC – which promises to be one of the most consequential media legal battles of the decade.
Perhaps it is wrong to try to lay down firm rules for journalists. The nature of the medium is conversational and personal.
But at a time of increasingly partisan journalism, of alternative facts and flexible truth, that’s a worry. Journalists should be participating, in my view, as trusted players – seeking to reach wide audiences and by doing so build the social cohesion which is the most important outcome of sharing news and views.
I have said previously on Inkl that I believe responsible participation on social media is part of good citizenship. Journalism is also an act of citizenship, so journalists carry particular responsibility for their conduct.
I felt for Alcorn. Her Twitter followers were demanding she respond meaningfully and promptly to their criticism. And some of that criticism was unreasonable and even abusive (although I agreed the tone of the article that provoked the storm was “off”.
Anyone who has worked in a daily news organisation knows that the editor cannot be as available and responsive to readers as some seem to expect.
Twitter users are also particularly vitriolic about journalists who use the platform only to promote their own work, or that of their publication. They want genuine engagement – and that can be hard to provide when you are also putting out a newspaper, and particularly, as the ABC is finding, when you are dealing with material that may end up before the defamation courts.
But nor do I think withdrawing is the answer.
The BBC recently updated its guidelines on social media use. It made it clear that journalists should give up some of their freedom of speech if they wanted to work for the organisation. “Your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC”.
Also, in what could be a useful jog to Australian journalists “Do not mistake social media networks as accurate reflections of public opinion; your audience is overwhelmingly elsewhere.”
That’s true. Twitter, in particular, is not mainstream. But that doesn’t mean it is not important, and an opportunity for journalists when used well.
It represents a particularly engaged, news-aware part of the audience, or potential audience, for journalism. That makes it a rugged environment, but also useful. The feedback can be scarifying, but educative. Only a small part is truly abusive.
The more thoughtful Twitter users are the kind of people any serious publication would love to have as subscribers.
So how is an editor to treat this audience with respect, while keeping manageable, both from the point of view time and mental health?
A few years ago I visited and interviewed Maria Ressa, the internationally respected editor of the Philippines Rappler. You can read the interview I did with her here.
By standing up to President Rodrigo Duterte, Ressa has acquired serious enemies. She gets death threats regularly. Once, a critic live-blogged to his followers encouraging them to join him outside the newsroom and shoot the journalists.
Ressa currently faces the possibility of jail for her journalism.
Yet Rappler finds its audience almost entirely through social media. She cannot afford to disengage.
Here is how she handles it. She has a junior staff member monitor her social media and give her a daily summary, on a single page, of the issues that are being raised that are worthy of response.
This staff member also alerts her to anything that comes up urgently and might merit a fast reaction, and also to any individuals who seem particularly intelligent and worthwhile and might be worth engaging with in other ways – perhaps as potential contributors.
The staff member also gives a very brief overview of the content of the more toxic stuff, but this is kept very short unless Ressa asks for a deeper dive.
Ressa addresses her reader’s feedback in regular YouTube chats – sometimes several a week. They are brief, often filmed on her iPhone as she rushes about. It is very informal but loved all the more for that.
Meanwhile, what about the voice of journalism? To what extent should journalists present points of view on the topics they are covering?
And to what extent should they share their personal lives? Should an employer be able to censor individual journalist’s twitter feeds?
Twitter can be a reporting platform by itself. I reported on the public housing lockdowns in Melbourne last year, both for The Guardian in traditional, curated pieces but also in a Twitter stream intended for the local community that quickly gained a wider following.
Twitter is also a good way of getting in touch with people, and a good way of seeking information. I have had good tips through Twitter, and have acquired useful contacts from my Twitter reporting of the lockdowns.
Every journalist will come up with their own rules. Some are bound by their employer.
Years ago, The Age dropped Catherine Deveny as a columnist after she Tweeted some poor-taste remarks about Bindi Irwin at the Logies.
Deveny was not an employee, but a freelancer.
The ABC’s Managing Director David Anderson got caught up in this dilemma before Senate Estimates last month. He was asked about Julia Zemiro, who fronts the ABC program Home Delivery. She had used her Twitter account to describe Peter Dutton as a disgrace.
Anderson replied that Zemiro was not an employee, but a contractor. She would be bound by ABC social media policies when on contract, but not at other times. Complicated, to say the least. Particularly since Anderson could not say, on the spot, whether Zemiro was currently under contract or not.
The ABC guidelines, by the way, somewhat vaguely require ABC folk to refrain from using social media in a manner that undermines their effectiveness at work. I am told the interpretation of what that means is largely left to individual managers and is not consistent across the organisation.
You can understand why. Journalists might acknowledge the need to be careful. It is hard to imagine Triple J presenters wanting to be reigned in.
Anderson indicated at an event at La Trobe University last month that he would prefer his employees to withdraw from social media, though he conceded journalists might need to use it. This is a sharp difference from his predecessor in the job, Mark Scott, who encouraged its use. Scott was known for Tweeting cheekily before and even during his appearance at Senate Estimates, for example.
I am a freelancer, and a media commentator. No employer can limit my account, although I suppose they could stop commissioning me if I was sufficiently offensive or unwise – as with Deveny.
Here are my rules, worked out for myself over the years.
I regard my Twitter presence as a part of my journalistic practice and try to engage in conversation without abandoning the professional disciplines of objective practice. I would be very worried if anything I Tweeted meant that a future interview subject would think I was unable to do journalism of integrity.
I almost never share personal material on a public account. I made an exception this week, because my father is in aged care and has not yet been vaccinated. But I offered that as an example of the national story. I did not share, explicitly, my worry or angst. Nor my opinion.
As a media commentator, I try to offer analysis, rather than opinion. It’s a blurry line, I acknowledge.
I retweet not necessarily to endorse, but because I think my followers will be interested in the content. I usually respond to criticism, so long as it is not abusive. I hardly ever block people.
These guidelines have served me well, and I regard my Twitter profile and followers as professional assets.
On the other hand, I am not particularly exciting. I will probably never go viral.
Is this what people want of their journalists? I’d be fascinated to know. Let me know – on Twitter.
Margaret Simons is an award-winning freelance journalist and the author of many books and numerous articles and essays. She is also a journalism academic and Honorary Principal Fellow at the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne. She has won the Walkley Award for Social Equity Journalism, a Foreign Press Association Award and a number of Quill Awards, including for her reporting from the Philippines with photojournalist Dave Tacon.
Support quality journalism.
As an inkl member you can directly support the work of journalists like Margaret Simons, while also getting access to 100+ publications like Foreign Affairs, The Independent, The Economist, Financial Times and Bloomberg.
As part of our commitment to building a sustainable future for journalism, a portion of your monthly inkl membership fee will go directly to Margaret for as long as you remain a subscriber.
BECOME A MEMBER
