Washington Post Bans Writers From Talking To Readers On Twitter: Old Media Loses Plot
TWITTER is a problem for The Washington Post. The paper has issued a decree forbidding its journalists from debating with the papers readers on its Twitter account.
This is not because thoughtful debate in 140 characters is tricky, even if you use shorthand. It’s because The Post thinks social media just a good way to increase the brand awareness. It’s one big advert.
The matter is based on a story the paper published in which an “anti-gay activist” made the slight that being gay is a mental health issue. President Obama’s chief aide merely says being gay is a “lifestyle “choice. This is a big issue in the US, where a few gay teens have committed suicide in recent weeks.
Top UK Journalists On Twitter: The Media Brands Worth Following
A “pro-gay” activist writes in to the Post’s Twitter account to complain about the aforesaid article. The Post reacts:
“Even as we encourage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolutely vital to remember that the purpose of these Post-branded accounts is to use them as a platform to promote news, bring in user generated content and increase audience engagement with Post content.”
Increase user generated content by not engaging with the, er, users?
“No branded Post accounts should be used to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, just as you should follow our normal journalistic guidelines in not using your personal social media accounts to speak on behalf of the Post.”
Readers are critics? Normal journalistic guidelines at the Post include not defending yourself or issuing a rebuttal?
The Post’s rulers go on:
“Perhaps it would be useful to think of the issue this way: when we write a story, our readers are free to respond and we provide them a venue to do so.”
We are just the messenger. Sure the paper is full of opinion and edited content that adheres to a news agenda – but we are just the messenger.
“We sometimes engage them in a private verbal conversation, but once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor – and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It’s something we don’t do.”
What is journalism if not a dialogue with the readers? You readers can write in and give us your free opinions and content. But our hacks are too superior to respond. We are above you and out of your reach.
This is pathetic, self-defeating and pretty much illustrates why the old media is in the brown stuff…
Top UK Journalists On Twitter: The Media Brands Worth Following
Spotter: Greenslade
Posted: 26th, October 2010 | In: Reviews Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
