Opinion

Jack Shafer

Twitter panic in the newsroom

Jack Shafer
Jul 10, 2014 22:15 UTC

 A person holds a magnifying glass over a computer screen displaying Twitter logos

With the exception of a well-drafted libel suit, nothing fills the underwear of the modern newsroom editor with liquid panic faster than social media, especially Twitter. Having invested millions of dollars and countless man-hours to erecting sturdy news standards based on fairness and impartiality, they fear that one 140-character message by an editorial employee will ravage the entire edifice.

The panic-fluids ran hot over at NPR this week after a blogger on the network’s education team tweeted, “I reach out to diverse sources on deadline. Only the white guys get back to me :(” The blogger apologized, and to her credit did not place her tweet in the burn bag. Mark Memmott, the network’s Standards & Practices supervising editor, issued a memo to remind the staff of NPR’s social media policy, which he boiled down to this: “If you wouldn’t say it on the air, don’t say it on the Web.”

Personal comments on Twitter or Facebook “can reflect on NPR and raise questions about our ability to be objective,” Memmott wrote. Citing NPR’s Ethics Handbook, he asserted that “nothing on the Web is truly private,” and that even retweets were suspect — and to be avoided! — because they can be viewed as endorsements.

The Associated Press maintains a similarly restrictive social media policy, as the Poynter Institute’s Sam Kirkland reports, urging its staffers to avoid tweets or retweets that could be interpreted as expressing an opinion or approval. Nor does a disclaimer in one’s Twitter bio that retweets don’t equal endorsement provide any indemnity for an AP journalist. Similarly, Reuters warns in its editorial handbook of the threat social media poses to the company’s “hard-earned reputation for independence and freedom from bias.” Even clicking a “like” button can potentially compromise the company’s standards, it warns. “[B]efore you tweet or post, consider how what you’re doing will reflect on your professionalism and our collective reputation,” the handbook instructs.

Are NPR, the AP, and Reuters’s editorial reputations really so fragile that a 140-character tweet or retweet by a staffer can blow the whole thing down? I don’t think so. And neither does Philip B. Corbett, the New York Times associate managing editor for standards, who approaches the topic with comparative calm. Corbett holds that Twitter users understand that sometimes a retweet is just a retweet — that it “involves sharing or pointing something out, not necessarily advocating or endorsing,” as he explained it to Poynter’s Kirkland. Corbett still expects mindfulness from his staffers who use Twitter, but if I read him correctly, he just doesn’t think a thicket of rules and regulations serve the best interests of Times readers.

If I unfollowed you, it’s because you tweeted about the World Cup

Jack Shafer
Jun 26, 2014 20:06 UTC

WC Tweet

At the rate I’m going, the number of people I follow on Twitter will have dropped from 640 to zero on July 13, after the last World Cup match concludes.

I’ve never been sentimental about Twitter, randomly unfollowing gassy and predictable feeds when flooded by their abundant and stupefying tweets, or pruning my list to make room for new voices. I can only assume that other Twitter devotees similarly budget their accounts, otherwise how could one keep up with the traffic?

Last month, soccer enthusiasts simplified the editing of my follow list by tweeting expansively about the World Cup. They published pre-game tweets. They live-tweeted matches. They offered post-game tweets. They tweeted about soccer fashion, about the officials’ bad calls, about the stadiums, other fans, the weather, other tweets, and more. If you’re a heavy Twitter user, you know what I’m talking about.

The guy who reads crap on the Web so you don’t have to

Jack Shafer
Jun 4, 2014 21:53 UTC

click777

You know that annoying guy in the office who steps on all of your punch lines? Who deflates with a concise quip the shaggy dog stories you’re trying to tell? Well, that buttinski has taken his act to Twitter where, under the username SavedYouAClick, he’s razoring the guts out of the often misleading and exploitative click-bait tweets posted by Huffington Post, Vice, Mashable, Cosmopolitan, Business Insider, TMZ, Drudge Report, and others designed to drive you to their stories.

Unlike the guy in your office, SavedYouAClick doesn’t annoy, he delights. His interruptions on Twitter are pure public service. His method is simple: grab a publication’s tweet that links to one of its stories — such as this one on Wednesday from BusinessWeek, “How China’s government is erasing the memory of the Tiananmen Square massacre” — and then retweet it with an appropriate click-saving comment. How is China erasing the Tiananmen memory? “By pretending it never happened.”

Other recent click-busters from the SavedYouAClick stream:

Adjust brightness, contrast, etc. RT @HuffingtonPost: Instagram introduces 10 new features that will take your photos to the next level

Hate your free service? Go tweet yourself

Jack Shafer
Oct 30, 2013 21:58 UTC

Twitter users by the thousands — or maybe even the hundreds! — stubbed their scrolling fingers yesterday at the news of a new default setting in the popular service. Previously, links to photos or videos in tweets hosted on Twitter servers did not appear in a user’s “timeline.” Now, visual previews “will be front and center in tweets,” the company announced.

By Web standards, the Twitter change was incremental. But as Wired‘s Mat Honan and BuzzFeed‘s John Herman explained, it nonetheless infuriated longtime users who like their information-compressed, character-based Twitter just the way it is. These veteran users regard the inclusion of visuals to their Twitter timeline like the addition of a fistful of arrowroot to their miso soup, and don’t care that the visuals will make it easier for the company — as it approaches a public offering — to sell ads and compete with the visually richer Facebook and Google+ services.

Aside from growling about it on Twitter, what can the 140-character minimalists do? Not much. Free Web service outposts like Twitter, Facebook, Google, SkyDrive, Dropbox and the rest can change their features and their terms of service (ToS) at will unless the Federal Trade Commission intercedes with a privacy audit or ruling. The only real resort for irate users is to delete their account and take their cheapskate ways to another free service. For the most part, this never happens. Back in 2010, “Quit Facebook Day” organizers convinced only 33,313 out of 400 million users to disconnect from the service, as Alex Howard reported. It turns out to be easier for someone to leave a marriage than it is to abandon a Facebook or Twitter account. If you’re fed up with your marriage, there’s a bottomless stock of potential spouses. But there is only one Twitter and one Facebook. Grow heavily invested in a free service — Google would be mine — and you’ll grudgingly surrender your golden retriever, your first-born, and your left kidney if and when the new ToS require it.

  •