The New York Times released new social media guidelines for its entire newsroom on Friday, urging employees to refrain from posting anything that could be construed as biased. (Photo: Florent Lamoureux/Flickr/cc)
Oct 13, 2017
Journalists expressed concerns about potential fallout from the New York Times' unveiling of its new social media policy for its employees on Friday, with some alarmed that the strict new rules could be "weaponized" against Times journalists.
Executive editor Dean Baquet released the new guidelines citing "potential risks" social media poses for the newspaper, should journalists' posts on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms be perceived as biased.
While many reporters make clear on their Twitter biographies that their posts do not denote endorsements of viewpoints or represent the Times itself, the paper issued a new guideline stating that "Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that the Times is seeking to cover objectively."
The new guidelines apply "everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics," and to journalists' accounts across social media, including ones for personal use.
While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or "like" online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times...
Avoid joining private and "secret" groups on Facebook and other platforms that may have a partisan orientation. You should also refrain from registering for partisan events on social media.
Journalists from the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post brought up concerns that the new rules could be used against Times employees by those eager to attack the news media in the current anti-press environment, promoted by the White House. In recent weeks the Trump administration suggested Jemele Hill should be fired from her job as a sports anchor at ESPN, after she attacked the president's ties to white supremacists.
\u201cMy thought: firmer policies, instituted to monitor employees, will get triggered by adversaries of their journalism. https://t.co/fghvSlnhMw\u201d— Matt Pearce \ud83e\udd85 (@Matt Pearce \ud83e\udd85) 1507908318
Hamilton Nolan of Splinter News suggested the monitoring of journalists' private use of social media was an overstep by the Times.
\u201cThe NYT's union should fight these rules which mandate policing parts of journalists' private lives. https://t.co/Vn9k0kFMxN\u201d— Hamilton Nolan (@Hamilton Nolan) 1507909351
Nick Baumann of the Huffington Post argued that the newspaper should maintain transparency in its engagement with the public--including on social media.
\u201cNYT's new social media rules, like many of its policies, start from the idea that it's important to hide reporters' true views from readers.\u201d— Nick Baumann (@Nick Baumann) 1507909334
Meawhile, others suggested the Times's new rules are an attempt to appease more conservative readers.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Journalists expressed concerns about potential fallout from the New York Times' unveiling of its new social media policy for its employees on Friday, with some alarmed that the strict new rules could be "weaponized" against Times journalists.
Executive editor Dean Baquet released the new guidelines citing "potential risks" social media poses for the newspaper, should journalists' posts on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms be perceived as biased.
While many reporters make clear on their Twitter biographies that their posts do not denote endorsements of viewpoints or represent the Times itself, the paper issued a new guideline stating that "Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that the Times is seeking to cover objectively."
The new guidelines apply "everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics," and to journalists' accounts across social media, including ones for personal use.
While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or "like" online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times...
Avoid joining private and "secret" groups on Facebook and other platforms that may have a partisan orientation. You should also refrain from registering for partisan events on social media.
Journalists from the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post brought up concerns that the new rules could be used against Times employees by those eager to attack the news media in the current anti-press environment, promoted by the White House. In recent weeks the Trump administration suggested Jemele Hill should be fired from her job as a sports anchor at ESPN, after she attacked the president's ties to white supremacists.
\u201cMy thought: firmer policies, instituted to monitor employees, will get triggered by adversaries of their journalism. https://t.co/fghvSlnhMw\u201d— Matt Pearce \ud83e\udd85 (@Matt Pearce \ud83e\udd85) 1507908318
Hamilton Nolan of Splinter News suggested the monitoring of journalists' private use of social media was an overstep by the Times.
\u201cThe NYT's union should fight these rules which mandate policing parts of journalists' private lives. https://t.co/Vn9k0kFMxN\u201d— Hamilton Nolan (@Hamilton Nolan) 1507909351
Nick Baumann of the Huffington Post argued that the newspaper should maintain transparency in its engagement with the public--including on social media.
\u201cNYT's new social media rules, like many of its policies, start from the idea that it's important to hide reporters' true views from readers.\u201d— Nick Baumann (@Nick Baumann) 1507909334
Meawhile, others suggested the Times's new rules are an attempt to appease more conservative readers.
Journalists expressed concerns about potential fallout from the New York Times' unveiling of its new social media policy for its employees on Friday, with some alarmed that the strict new rules could be "weaponized" against Times journalists.
Executive editor Dean Baquet released the new guidelines citing "potential risks" social media poses for the newspaper, should journalists' posts on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms be perceived as biased.
While many reporters make clear on their Twitter biographies that their posts do not denote endorsements of viewpoints or represent the Times itself, the paper issued a new guideline stating that "Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that the Times is seeking to cover objectively."
The new guidelines apply "everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics," and to journalists' accounts across social media, including ones for personal use.
While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or "like" online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times...
Avoid joining private and "secret" groups on Facebook and other platforms that may have a partisan orientation. You should also refrain from registering for partisan events on social media.
Journalists from the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post brought up concerns that the new rules could be used against Times employees by those eager to attack the news media in the current anti-press environment, promoted by the White House. In recent weeks the Trump administration suggested Jemele Hill should be fired from her job as a sports anchor at ESPN, after she attacked the president's ties to white supremacists.
\u201cMy thought: firmer policies, instituted to monitor employees, will get triggered by adversaries of their journalism. https://t.co/fghvSlnhMw\u201d— Matt Pearce \ud83e\udd85 (@Matt Pearce \ud83e\udd85) 1507908318
Hamilton Nolan of Splinter News suggested the monitoring of journalists' private use of social media was an overstep by the Times.
\u201cThe NYT's union should fight these rules which mandate policing parts of journalists' private lives. https://t.co/Vn9k0kFMxN\u201d— Hamilton Nolan (@Hamilton Nolan) 1507909351
Nick Baumann of the Huffington Post argued that the newspaper should maintain transparency in its engagement with the public--including on social media.
\u201cNYT's new social media rules, like many of its policies, start from the idea that it's important to hide reporters' true views from readers.\u201d— Nick Baumann (@Nick Baumann) 1507909334
Meawhile, others suggested the Times's new rules are an attempt to appease more conservative readers.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.