Image courtesy of http://momeee.com/wp-content/uploads/twitter-bird-big.gif
After the recent news of Twitter bowing to censorship in certain countries, it appears that other companies are reconsidering the ways that they use the social networking site. Out of a growing concern that reporters were broadcasting breaking news on Twitter before submitting copy to the head office, news companies Sky News and the BBC recently introduced new regulations for employees’ Twitter use on their professional accounts.
On February 7, Sky News introduced new social media guidelines that instructed employees not to retweet news from reporters outside the company, not to tweet about news stories that they have not been specifically assigned, and not to tweet any news before reporting it to the news desk first. The e-mail to employees also noted that on a number of occasions, the news tweeted by reporters and the news broadcast from other Sky News platforms delivered conflicting messages. On February 8, the BBC issued a similar rule requiring journalists to send news through the traditional pathways of the newsroom before breaking any news on Twitter.
Image courtesy of http://sproutsocial.com/insights/2011/11/news-organizations-twitter/
The announcements have been met with both approval and disapproval but bring up the relevant issue of control as we redefine reporting in a digital age. As more people turn to social media as one of their primary sources of information, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for journalism when the news institutions themselves begin to institute limitations on how stories can be covered. I understand the need to maintain editorial control—especially on professional Twitter accounts—but these decisions seems to be a step backwards rather than a step forward. Our society is increasingly accustomed to immediacy and these companies are not doing themselves any favors by placing restrictions on their own reporters’ ability to deliver the news.
Yes, but putting some restrictions on Twitter news reporting isn’t just about censorship or the vested interests of the news organization. As immediate as news needs to be these days, stories need to be checked and verified and sometimes approached carefully, not only for the good of the news organization and the reporter, but for the public good. For instance, during Hurricane Katrina, CNN reported and broadcast false and exaggerated news stories of rapes, looting and murders at the Superdome that nearly resulted in people getting shot on the bridge on the way to Metarie, LA. The mayor of that parish putted armed police officers there, forcing people back into Orleans parish, people trying to flee to safety! God only knows what would have happened if Twitter had been available then for “news” reporting. Rumors need to be verified and news organizations have to be responsible about monitoring their reporters to make sure their work, or tweets, aren’t erroneous or unwarranted/inflammatory.
Agreed. I think that the review of tweets is a necessary step to make sure that the correct stories are being reported–especially considering how many people use Twitter as one of their primary news sources now. I’m glad that it is something that is being addressed as its an interesting balance between the benefits of getting news fast and the dangers of reporting without checking for accuracy. I only hope that it continues to be a measure that tries to improve the news rather than inhibit it.
I agree, as well. It’s especially interesting to think about since we listened to the lecture in 530 about the use of tweets to map shootings in Mexico. There were two people who were arrested for public endangerment for posting false information and creating chaos in the city. If two individuals can create that amount of chaos, imagine what a news organization could do if it reported false information like that! Like Jade, I hope it will improve news and news distribution rather than inhibiting it. It’s certainly important to strike a balance between speed and accuracy, and I’m hoping this is a step in the right direction.
This reminds me of a related kind of situation: when parties involved or affected by major events or situations expect to be informed through a more “acceptable” source. The first thing that came to mind for me was when sports players find out they are traded via Twitter before the coach or team owner has a chance to tell them. Here is an example of that that happened last March:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Shane-Battier-found-out-he-was-traded-on-Twitter?urn=nba-328249
And here is a baseball player’s tweet about finding out about his trade via Twitter:
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?p=30419837
I can only imagine how families feel when they find out about disasters or death via twitter or even news stories on TV.