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

By: Friend Adder Combo

Friend Adder Combo — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:43:10 +0000

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.

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

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:56:37 +0000

[...] Responding to the Wall Street Journal Washington Post social Posted by root 9 days ago (http://www.oldmedianewtricks.com) Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator do you already have an account logo by roberto villalpando powered by wordpress Discuss | Bury | News | Responding to the Wall Street Journal Washington Post social [...]

By: Kevin Sablan

Kevin Sablan — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:01:54 +0000

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.

By: AmyVernon

AmyVernon — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:59:58 +0000

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.

By: dan360man

dan360man — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:45:06 +0000

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?

By: John Boitnott

John Boitnott — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:37:35 +0000

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.

By: AmyVernon

AmyVernon — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:50:47 +0000

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.