Comments on: Holding corporate tweets to a higher standard http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/28/holding-corporate-tweets-to-a-higher-standard/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: jackietewing http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/28/holding-corporate-tweets-to-a-higher-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-16238 Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:56:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4462#comment-16238 I hadn’t given this topic much thought until I read through this post. I agree with Felix that corporate accounts do represent the corporation and as such need to stay within the boundaries of truth. Zach’s response above says much about the fact that @WSJ recognized and corrected the error. We are human even if representing corporate and accepting errors should be a part of the process.
I admire both writing styles here and look forward to continued correspondence between the two!

]]>
By: zseward http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/28/holding-corporate-tweets-to-a-higher-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-16226 Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:13:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4462#comment-16226 Well, I posted that tweet on the @WSJ account, and it was indeed a mistake. Followers of the account got the true gist of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the tweets that followed. Which is not to say that rectified the original tweet, but we also replied to people who expressed understandable confusion about the ruling’s scope. I don’t know what more to say except that you’re right.

On the second half of this post, however, I think you’re wrong. The @WSJ account absolutely links to non-WSJ stories. Here we are linking to you. Here we are retweeting one of your links to a Lifehacker post. Here we are linking to a New York Times scoop.

You say, “The flagship twitter feed of a big media company, by contrast, is a different animal entirely: it’s a broadcasting mechanism more than it is an attempt to engage in conversation.” For us, it is actually both. We respond to readers all the time, fielding questions about the news, complaints about delivery issues, and whatever else our followers want to talk about. People tweet at us with corrections, and we make them. It’s good journalism. Can’t we have a human voice and be held to a higher standard?

Anyway, I don’t mean to obfuscate the original point, which is that the first Sarbanes-Oxley tweet was a mistake. I just don’t think it’s related to the human voice of our Twitter account.

]]>
By: HBC http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/28/holding-corporate-tweets-to-a-higher-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-16225 Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4462#comment-16225 I agree that upper-class tweets could be less imprecise, but that would be so unlike them as to be uncharacteristic. In the present instance however, unless and until PCAOB members have any kind of job security immune from the Fed and whims of Wall Street, which may be regarded as one and the same thing, the whole of SaBox might as well have just been suspended.

Whether anyone will actually notice remains to be seen.

]]>