Responding to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post social media rules

May 14th, 2009

We have a post in the works, but we first wanted to know. What are your thoughts on this and this?

Preliminarily, I see where they’re trying to go with the rules, but do you agree/disagree with them?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Entry Filed under: General,social media

  • http://tvtyrant.com AmyVernon

    These rules are asinine. Look, reporters do need to be reminded that they should assume that anything they post on a forum, Facebook or Twitter eventually can be seen by ANYone, so they shouldn't be stupid. But to have to have a senior editor approve a tweet or not allowing reporters to blog, you're making it so they can't do their jobs effectively anymore.

    On the reporters' side, they need not to be idiots. No, they shouldn't get into fights with critics online. But they shouldn't have to be told that – they're not supposed to get into fights with critics over the phone or in person, either. Besides just reflecting poorly on the paper, it also achieves NOTHING.

    Rule Nos. 1-10: Don't be stupid. kthanxbai.

  • John Boitnott

    You would think that reporters don't need to be told that – but with the endless cutbacks, inexperience, and general watering down of journalism in recent years, I wouldn't be surprised if reporters don't know what to do in these situations.

    Having said that – you are indeed spot on Amy.

  • http://oldmedianewtricks.com dan360man

    So how's this, Amy/John:

    “Assume everything you do online is public, or could be made public at some point. Conduct yourself in a way that's consistent with your publication's code of conduct. Being a good social media citizen means interacting with others – sources and non-sources, readers and non-readers alike – with a combination of common sense and common courtesy.

    If you have any questions, ask your editors.”

    Could at least be an executive summary, no?

  • http://tvtyrant.com AmyVernon

    Makes sense to me. I don't have a problem with a basic guideline like that, but trying to fully regulate it is just gonna get 'em in trouble.

  • http://almightylink.ksablan.com/ Kevin Sablan

    I defer to Jamie Kelly's “two-line social media policy:”

    1. If you’re using an account for work purposes, identify yourself as an employee of The Gazette.

    2. If posting something would embarass you or the company, or call your professional reputation into question, DON’T POST IT.

    And I think it would be wise for us to follow the The Media 2.0 Best Practices being collaboratively developed by a group of people much smarter than me.

  • Pingback: Responding to the Wall Street Journal Washington Post social | Outdoor Ceiling Fans

  • http://www.friendadderelite.com/friend-adder-elite-combos.html Friend Adder Combo

    yeah right. even blogs, comments, or forums can be used to spread news.
    like in cellular phones, like those so called group message or GM for you to be able to spread information to multiple individuals.


Calendar

December 2016
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Most Recent Posts


Add to Technorati Favorites Add to Google Reader or Homepage