Good advice interspersed with real missteps in ASNE's social media best practices

Joy Mayer, 2010-2011 Fellow

The American Society of News Editors has released its social media best practices for news organizations, researched and written by Politico's James Hohmann. The pdf includes really interesting and helpful sample social media policies, and I highly recommend holding onto those as a resource. (The Guardian's policy specifically is one I really admire.)

There's a lot in this document that's good. It presents 10 key takeaways, and offers some really useful teachable moments and policy excerpts for each. I applaud ASNE for making this available, and I hope it starts some good conversations.

I also disagree with some of the findings. Here are my quick reactions to the paper's 10 key points:

1. Traditional ethics rules still apply online.

Yes, but ...

Reporters should act the same way online as they would in person. They shouldn’t say anything they wouldn’t want to see on the front page of their newspaper, and they shouldn’t post anything that would embarrass them personally or professionally or their organization. This seems like common sense, but to many journalists it’s not obvious.

Aren't there contradictions inherent here? Does everyone act all the time in person in a way that they'd want to see on the front page? I would say plenty of things in person that I wouldn't want published. But being professional online is even more important than in person, because what you say there is forever findable and citable.

2. Assume everything you write online will become public.

Yes, both personally and professionally.

3. Use social media to engage with readers, but professionally.

Yes. I have loads more to say here than I can get into today, about engaging as an individual or as a brand. Will try to write about that soon.

4. Break news on your website, not on Twitter.

In a news climate that values speed, there are great temptations and added incentives to break news on Twitter or Facebook instead of waiting for it to move through the editorial pipeline. This undercuts one of the main values of social media for news organizations, which is to drive traffic and increase the reach of high-quality journalism. Competitors have been known to snap up scoops first hinted at on Twitter or to accelerate the publication of a story if it becomes clear on Twitter that someone at another outlet is moving forward with a similar story.

I was horrified when I saw this line, but the post goes on to say that there are indeed times when getting news out there is more valuable than waiting to have a link to share. In general, though, I think journalists, and this set of recommendations, undervalue being a relevant, quick part of ongoing conversations. If we wait to have links, in too many cases people already know what we have to share.

5. Beware of perceptions.

Yes, and there are some good suggestions here about balance and disclaimers. But then we get to this part:

Take caution in friending sources on Facebook. There’s some disagreement among editors about whether accepting or making “friend” requests is okay. As Facebook has become more ubiquitous and the connotation of the verb “friend” has been diluted, being “friends” with someone you cover is more acceptable than it might have looked a few years ago.

There is a risk that reporters endanger their sources by being their “friend,” but there’s also important information that’s only visible to people who accept or make such requests. Some networks, like Facebook, allow you to hide your list of friends. This is advisable, but it shouldn’t be taken for granted and it could nonetheless put sources at risk even if they don’t realize it. Be thoughtful and develop a coherent approach to dealing with friend requests.

This is a good example of caution being a dominant theme throughout the document. I think editors need to be encouraged to experiment. The caution comes naturally. (And am I reading this correctly that reporters should consider friending sources, but then hiding their friend lists? Transparency, anyone?)

6. Independently authenticate anything found on a social networking site.

Yes.

7. Always identify yourself as a journalist.

Yes.

8. Social networks are tools not toys.

Here's what this one says, in its entirety:

In an April Fools kind of way, some journalists have reported phony information on social media sites. Since journalists are representing their news organizations, they should not abandon their role as truth tellers when they venture onto Twitter or Facebook.

But that’s why even when something appears to be authenticated, it’s important to make clear where it came from when passing it along. Part of the ethos of social networking is crediting the original source. Reporters should always give credit to bloggers or citizen journalists or reporters from other mainstream news organizations, when warranted, because it’s the right thing to do and it offers important cover.

Can anyone explain this to me? Reporting phony information? Make it clear where information came from, absolutely. But what does that have to do with tools and toys?

9. Be transparent and admit when you’re wrong online.

Absolutely. And I would add a section about not deleting posts unless absolutely necessary (again, transparency), and where that line is.

10. Keep internal deliberations confidential.

Maybe. I'd hate to see hard rules about this. Be professional, yes. Don't hang your dirty laundry in public, yes. But aren't we supposed to be in favor of sharing our processes with our readers? With lifting the veil off our decision making?

The urge to control how journalists interact with the public has got to be quieted down. We can't control it, any more than we've ever been able to control what they've said or done in public. Maybe all policies can't be as simple as John Paton's. But we've got to collectively take a deep breath, talk about what kind of behavior we DO encourage, and then hope we hired professionals with common sense.