NPR Gets in News Staff's Facebook

 

For those keenly watching the ever-increasing overlap of journalism and new media, and what it means for both, National Public Radio's newly-released "News Social Media Guidelines" are of obvious interest.

They provide an important insight into how the prestigious national network considers its news staff in this age of "media is everywhere," and where it draws the lines regarding its employees' personal and professional use of such social media web sites like Facebook and Twitter. 

NPR's new guidelines, released October 15, come at a time when social media web sites like Facebook and Twitter are increasingly becoming a first-line source of news and information for millions of Americans, particularly with regard to breaking news stories, and commentary (e.g. I first learned of the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy through a post on Facebook, and these days I am more likely to watch a Jon Stewart Daily Show commentary on Facebook than on cable TV).

According to NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller, who emailed her staff last week about the network's new social media guidelines, the rules are mandatory for those working at NPR in news, programming, digital media, communications, and legal divisions, as well as corporate officers.  "But even if you fall outside those boundaries," wrote Schiller "you'd be smart to review the guidelines and follow them. NPR is first and foremost a news organization, which means staffers from Finance to Facilities represent the face of NPR's journalistic integrity."

Among the new NPR social media guidelines that have left some staff members puzzled and unhappy about the network's reach into their personal self-expression are:

• "You must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online. This extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org";
  
  
• "Your simple participation in some online groups could be seen to indicate that you endorse their views. Consider whether you can accomplish your purposes by just observing a group's activity, rather than becoming a member. If you do join, be clear that you've done so to seek information or story ideas. And if you "friend" or join a group representing one side of an issue, do so for a group representing the competing viewpoint, when reasonable to do so."; and 
  
  
• "You should conduct yourself in social media forums with an eye to how your behavior or comments might appear if we were called upon to defend them as a news organization." 
  
  

NPR's guidelines, including the limits on NPR staff joining social media groups and asking that social networking conduct be based on whether NPR could defend it, seem to be a bit skittish, and appear to demonstrate a modest naïveté about how people are actually using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, which are increasingly becoming a locus for people to share and discuss critical current events and matters of social importance.  This while NPR has been publicly proclaiming its interest in expanding from radio into the area of social media, which inherently involves often freewheeling and open discussions and comment.  

Meanwhile, at the Washington Post, Raju Narisetti, one of the newspaper's two managing editors, closed his Twitter account in September after being criticized for his posts about the health care debate. ("We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not," read one Narisetti Twitter post. "But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad.")  

On September 25, the Washington Post announced that Narisetti would be closing his Twitter account after he "chatted" with Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli.  At the same time, the newspaper released its new social media guidelines, which state, in part: "Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility."

Almost immediately, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz offered this tongue-in-cheek response via his Twitter account, while seeming to stay within the paper's new guidelines: 

“Under new WP guidelines on tweeting, I will now hold forth only on the weather and dessert recipes,” Kurtz wrote, adding in a subsequent Twitter posting, “Actually, I always assumed you shouldn’t tweet anything you wouldn't say in print or on the air. Diff betw having thoughts and being biased.”  [sic]

Perhaps not surprisingly, theNew York Times, which has demonstrated a broad interest in merging traditional journalism with new media, and has even created its own Facebook-like social media site, "TimesPeople,"  has voiced what seems like a more measured and insightful position with regard to the use of social media by the newspaper's staff, with guidelines that include practical advice about using social media sites as part of the reporting process and detailed specifics regarding personal and professional conduct on-line. 

The year-old internal New York Times social media guidelines, provided to Poynter.com earlier this year, begins with the the use of social media sites for reporting: "Facebook and other social networking sites --  MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter -- can be remarkably useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 proved."   The New York Times guidelines continue, "As we've discovered from the experts on our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person's work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects." 

With regard to the posting of material on social media sites, the New York Times guidelines suggest that employees, "Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a personal Web page that you could not write in the Times -- don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News Department."  

The New York Times guidelines also differentiate between activities in the real and virtual worlds by addressing whether a reporter can ethically write about someone who is a "friend" on a social networking site, saying "In general, being a 'friend' of someone on Facebook is almost meaningless and does not signify the kind of relationship that could pose a conflict of interest for a reporter or editor writing about that person. But if a 'friend' is really a personal friend, it would."   

Additionally, the New York Times guidelines address whether there is a problem if their reporters becoming an on-line, virtual "friend," on a social networking site like Facebook, with someone they cover.  ("Mostly no" say the New York Times guidelines, unless disclosure could embarrass the reporter, such as an on-line "friending" between a political reporter and a campaign manager.)  And, the New York Times guidelines allow for reporters to contact someone through a social media site like Facebook, but note "Ethical Journalism says, 'We do not inquire pointlessly into someone's personal life.' "

There are hardly clear ethical "rights and wrongs" in the emerging world of social media as it relates to journalism, and, as with the evolution of TV news coverage over the past six decades, there are many practical and ethical questions that will need to be addressed by news organizations about the uses of this new social medium.  

At the same time, in the "new media world" that has evolved on the internet, with sites like Facebook and Twitter, it seems hopelessly outdated to think that news readers, viewers and listeners can, or even should, be kept in the dark about a journalist's interests, activities and even personal views.  Perhaps this sort of transparency could be good for journalism?  At the same time, journalism has to deal with the fact that the evolving world of social media further blurs the line between personal and professional for those working in what is already a very public profession.  

Likely Howard Kurtz has it right, and Facebook, Twitter and social media sites are just virtual extensions of the real world, so the same rules should apply.  For example, it would seem to make sense that if reporters at a newspaper are prohibited from wearing campaign buttons, they likely shouldn't be identified with a particular candidate's social networking group.  

Interestingly, NPR's recent broad social media mandates were coupled with this caveat to news staff about posting on social media sites: "And a final caution - when in doubt, consult with your editor."  

One has to wonder just what the editors at NPR will say if they are asked "is it OK to post a link to last night's Jon Stewart rant or to Frank Rich's recent editorial on my Facebook page?"

Welcome to Journalism 2.0.  The water seems fine.  It may just be a matter of jumping in. 

 

According to NPR, these guidelines are mandatory for everyone working in news, programming, digital media, communications, legal divisions and officers of NPR . . . and anyone using NPR-issued equipment or writing from their NPR email address (or providing that address for response) must also adhere to them," according to an email NPR president Vivian Schiller wrote to staff.

 

Among the new guidelines that have left some NPR staff members grumbling about the networks intrusion into their personal life are new rules that:

 

"You must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online. This extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org."

 

and

 

"You should conduct yourself in social media forums with an eye to how your behavior or comments might appear if we were called upon to defend them as a news organization."

 

NPR's guidelines, including the limits on expressing personal views about political issues on social media sites, demonstrates a modest naïveté about how people actually use Facebook, which is surprising given NPR's President Schiller's oft stated goal of pioneering the uses of new media for journalism.

 

Meanwhile, at the Washington Post, one of the paper's two managing editors, Raju Narisetti, caught heat for Twittering about the health care debate. ("“We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not,” read a recent one. “But we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad," wrote Narisetti on Twitter), which led to a ban on Washington Post journalists expressing themselves on social network sites like Facebook or Twitter.  On September 25, 2009, Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli released new social media guidelines, which state, in part: “Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2009/09/post_editor_ends_tweets_as_new.html

 

Almost immediately, Washington Post media critic

 

It’s enough to give any MSM tweeter pause, or at least a bit of writer’s block. Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz still found a way to crack-wise within the guidelines, tweeting in response to the new mandates.

 

“Under new WP guidelines on tweeting, I will now hold forth only on the weather and dessert recipes,” he wrote, and then added, more seriously, “Actually, I always assumed you shouldn’t tweet anything you wouldn’t say in print or on the air. Diff betw having thoughts and being biased.”  http://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/status/4401785751

 

Perhaps not surprisingly, The New York Times, which has demonstrated its broad interest in merging traditional journalism and new media, and has even created its own Facebook-like social media site, "TimesPeople," http://timespeople.nytimes.com has voiced a more measured position with regard to the use of social media by staff with guidelines that also offer practical advice about using social networking sites as part of reporting.

 

Earlier this year the New York Times' policy on Facebook and social networking sites was provided to Poynter.com by Craig Whitney, The New York Times' assistant managing editor who oversees journalistic standards.  The guidelines first and foremost focused on the use of social networking sites for reporting, beginning with, "Facebook and other social networking sites --  MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter -- can be remarkably useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 proved."  With regard to postings, the New York Times guidelines ask news staff to "Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a personal Web page that you could not write in The Times -- don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News Department."  It also differentiates between virtual and real worlds by addresses whether a reporter can ethically write about someone who is a "Friend" on a social networking site, saying "In general, being a "friend" of someone on Facebook is almost meaningless and does not signify the kind of relationship that could pose a conflict of interest for a reporter or editor writing about that person. But if a "friend" is really a personal friend, it would."  Also, should a New York Times reporter refrain from being a "Friend" on a social networking site with someone they cover? ("Mostly no" unless disclosure of the friend could embarrass the reporter, such as a political reporter and a campaign manager.) Finally, the New York Times guidelines allow for reporters to ask questions by e-mail through on Facebook, and notes "Ethical Journalism says.”We do not inquire pointlessly into someone's personal life."

 

There is hardly "right and wrong" in this emerging area, but, as with the development of TV News coverage, there are lots of ethical and practical questions about this new media, in need of specific answers.  NPR's broad brush approach was coupled with this caveat to news staff: "And a final caution - when in doubt, consult with your editor." What will the editors say when asked, "Is it OK to post last night's Jon Stewart rant on my Facebook page?"  Welcome to Journalism 2.0.

 

Follow Bill Lichtenstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Bill_LCMedia

Comments

[raker]

1. NPR advocates for political issues on the air, so why not online? NPR was ecstatic from the moment the first bomb dropped in Iraq, and expressed hardly a word of skepticism throughout the Bush years. NPR still won't call torture torture. Unforgivable. And Talk of the Nation is a daily program of Republican activism with a twist: it's civil, and it's subtle, but it has an unabashed pro-corpor­ate/pro-Re­publican mission.

2. The admonition to join a group with an opposing view from that of the group you endorse typifies the very worst of NPR, their cowardly reliance on the false equivalency, their treating every issue as though it has two or more valid points of view. This is lazy, cowardly, and dishonest. I take it to mean one thing: NPR is cowed by the right and takes great pains to avoid being called "liberal" for seeming to endorse sound public policy.

3. I've only glanced at Facebook and have never seen Twitter, but it's obvious that these are not places to go for news or reliable information. NPR newspeople need to a company policy to inform them that crackpot chatter is not news? Any newsperson who has to be advised not to seek news from web sites where teenagers go to flirt and exchange gossip ought to be in another line of work.

[Citizen54]

Are all these regulations going to result in more accurate reporting? Will we see better coverage of issues that affect the daily lives of ordinary Americans?

Will NPR start adding more voices to its interviews? Or will they continue to talk only to the cookie-cutter conservative Republican and centrist Democrat and call it "balanced"? And will NPR ever get over its crush on military men?!?!?!

[bobdcat]

Since NPR receives public funds, it has to maintain the appearance of complete neutrality in all political areas. As it is, they are often accused of being "liberal elites" when compared to the so-called "balance" the mainstream outlets maintain. That "balance" often consists of a far right wing "expert" balanced with a centrist while legitimate progressive views are dismissed or ignored.

A sad fact of life - FoxNews is considered a legitimate news outlet and not the republican­/libertari­an/tea-bag­ger/astrot­urf talking point distribution machine. However, NPR must be as irreproachable as Caesar's wife or be labeled socialist propagandists. There's your "fair and balanced", folks. At least the White House has called Fox out.

[raker]

I don't think anyone considers Fox a legitimate news source. Even Fox fans know in their dark, vestigial hearts that it's not news but a reinforcement of their fears and prejudices.

The news is not supposed to be bloodlessly neutral. In olden times, CBS and NBC provided news and analysis. Today, analysis has been condemned as unacceptable and is virtually nonexistent. (It turns out that thoughtful analysis has a well-known liberal bias.) NPR's most galling offense of neutrality is the verbal gymnastics they perform to make torture seem like more of an inconvenience than an unspeakable act of inhumanity.

[acarvin]

I think your read of the policy is a lot more restrictive than the way it's actually intended. NPR doesn't limit staff participation in social networks - in fact, we encourage it. Read the preamble to the policy and you'll see how it says that social networks are an important tool in our work.

The primary goal of the policy is to remind news staff that our journalism ethics guidelines, which have been around for a long time, apply online just as they do in real life. So just as you can't go on air and say "I support candidate X," or "legislation Y is a great idea," you can't do it on Facebook, Twitter, etc, either. As long as they're not advocating political issues, taking sides in topics we cover, etc, they can use social networks to their hearts' content. So the next time I see a Jon Stewart clip or a Frank Rich article that I want to share online, I'll keep doing that, because part of our job is to encourage public debate as well. We can do that without taking sides.

I've been on Twitter and Facebook for a long time, and I'm very talkative on both, about things both professional and personal. Will the policy change my behavior in any way? Not in the slightest. Because the rules really boil down to one basic idea - if you work for NPR, don't make an ass of yourself in a public space, whether it's offline or

[Bill Lichtenstein - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your feedback.

I saw your presentation on social media and journalism at Making Media Now and thought it was brilliant.

I think you (like Howard Kurtz) are correct that social media guidelines should transpose traditional journalistic practices/ethics into this new medium. TV news had to do the same, most notably in the 1970s, as “ambush interviews," "hidden cameras,” and other novel practices, were examined based on long-standing journalism principles.

However, the current situation also involves the personal and professional roles of journalists. Old school journalism says journalists didn't reveal their political/social beliefs; consider most Americans had no idea who Walter Cronkite or Ted Koppel supported for president. However, that buffer between journalists and the public is now virtually impossible with the advent of the web.

Meanwhile, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are replacing the water cooler for topical talk amongst friends, so the question of what’s "public" and "private" communications is also changing. It’s an area we’ve given much thought to since LCMedia’s first public radio broadcasts with Kurt Vonnegut and Suzanne Vega from the on-line, virtual world Second Life in 2006.

Finally, I appreciate the elegant simplicity of your “don’t make an ass out of yourself ..." but likely it’s more complicated than that, given social media's professional and personal use by journalists.

By the way, since NPR posted its social media policies on-line, it would be helpful if the preamble were also posted, if it contains relevant material.

[Wombaticus]

I have carefully read the NPR policy (no preamble available). Here are my thoughts:
- The vast majority of the guidelines are very sensible and don't infringe on any rights of the employee. Bravo, thats the NPR I love.
- "Must not advocate for any political party online". Is this part of a standard journalistic code? I cannot see how telling someone they MUST not be part of the political process in their personal time is constitutional, but I am willing to be educated on this. The basic law classes I attended were very clear that there are basic rights you cannot sign away, regardless of desire to do so.
- the last bullet point about communication being on or off the record. All preceding points seem to say that there IS no such thing as off the record when the communication is on the internet.

I think everyone should be very wary of employers mandating conditions on their employees personal time. "Constant vigilance is the price of freedom" said someone smarter than I. (too lazy to look it up, I am no journalist!)

[Wombaticus]

This is a fascinating article. I work at a social networking provider and we are looking at our own employee/employer issues with Facebook and other venues. I will be doing more follow-up on the links you provided.
The issues are very interesting in that the employer feels they have a right to infringe on the free speech of their employees.
Can these basic rights be suppressed by an employer rule?
Do the rights of the employing corporation outweigh the rights of the employees in their non-work hours?
If employees DO have the right to their own free speech (sad to think this is debatable), then how can they protected from negative reactions by their employer?

Thanks for posting this!

[taurus96]

I watch PBS and listen to NPR because their employees do not get into "pundit roles"They give me the whole story, not five minutes and they have people on of different views.No screaming, no easy questions,great follow up.They impart news,no silly quessing,no predications.
Some newspapers have their Frank Rick, Paul Krugman,Eugene Robinson,etc. on all the political shows on Meet the Press,Chris Matthews,MSNBC,CNN all giving their opinions.Wrong.I want in depth programs.

[Cyndy Keith]

After working at a newspaper, I understand the reason NPR has these rules. I once asked a military man if he supported Bush, and if he believed the war in Iraq was about oil, and he cut me off politely by saying the military was not allowed to make any comments about anything political, even on leave. It was a 'duh' moment for me, because I should have known better. I believe that journalists can only be respected if they report facts, without any personalizing.