Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the ever-expanding social media has changed the way reporters play their game. Now, the spotlight is even harsher on those knowledge-seekers, those community watchdogs. People trust the media to be as unbiased as humanly possible (a standard that I find completely ridiculous). According to this article, newspapers like the Washington Post are completely correct in cracking down on their employees' social networking activity.
Me? I think it's all a bunch of rubbish.
First of all, since when did journalists become robots? They're real people, just like us (except with a much bigger sense of curiosity than the majority of us news-receivers). Social media is a fast-paced, rapidly-expanding phenomenon. I think it's extremely passe for newspapers and other news outlets to restrict the growth of such a new-age technology. They may be preventing "damage control," but they're also preventing some really great things from happening.
Social media is the future for news, advertising, social networking, and jobs. It's absurd to ignore its advances and try to inhibit its growth. It can't be stopped.
Now, there are some concerns with social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. These sites are innately personal, meant to showcase little details about an individual. It's easy to see where the conflict comes in for journalists. They are supposed to be unbiased, so obvious political affiliations, embarrassing pictures, or inflammatory posts/comments aren't going to put anyone in a good light.
But can you make a rule that warns people against being stupid?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment