CASE 4-C
Micro
1.
The details within this case took place in
2009, when Twitter was still fairly new to everybody, but especially new to journalists. In 2009 many people who used Twitter in their professional careers
had a Twitter handle for that job. If they wanted a private one for when they
weren't working there would normally be something in there bio saying that
their thoughts and views expressed in their private account are not shared with
their employer’s thoughts and views. So, I don't think it's that important for
reporters to distinguish their professional roles on social networking sites. Reuters
is not a small news outlet, so I'm sure the people that followed David
Schlesinger at the time knew what he did for a living. Furthermore, the text referred
to his reporting from Davos as a "twitter experiment" with other
journalists and that anybody that would be reporting would be using #davos accompanying
the tweet (p. 96). If journalists truly wanted to distinguish their professional
roles from their personal roles, they would have separate social media accounts
with a disclaimer for their personal account in their bio.
2.
If Schlesinger was on the job reporting from
this Forum, I would have used his tweets in any of the accompanying stories
that were being run at Reuters. Schlesinger was an Editor-in-Chief at the time
this case took place, so I would have had faith in him that he knew what he was
doing ethically in his reporting. Using Twitter to do this reporting is similar
to the ticker that runs at the bottom of newscasts. It gives you the headlines,
and the important facts as they happen and the facts are a big part of loyalty
in journalism.
3.
Many people who are trying to land full-time
jobs with larger media outlets may use freelancing as a way to get their work
out there. It's not unheard of that they will attend conferences on their own, and
report their findings on their personal blog or website. If Schlesinger was a freelancer
with no financial ties Reuters, they would still have to cite where this
information is coming from, or risk losing their credibility by lifting this
information without permission. This answer is also being answered on the
assumption that Schlesinger as a freelancer has as much experience and gravitas
as the Schlesinger, the Editor-in-Chief at Reuters.
Midrange
1.
Twitter has changed the nature of the "scoop"
by allowing journalists to report and respond to stories as they happen.
Twitter and the Internet have allowed people to get the news when they want it
instead of having to wait for the news on TV, or the newspaper to arrive on
their doorstep. The problem with breaking news stories is the outlets that they
are coming from. In today's sports media it's fairly easy to tell which reporters
actually break news versus those who report it while crediting “sources” minutes
after the initial story breaks. There are instances when the parties making the
news handpick
the reporter they want to get the scoop, and then there is the one-in-a-million
scoop that somebody with no journalistic background gets no credit for
despite getting every single detail about the story correct. While Twitter and
the Internet allows for up-to-the-minute news it's important to always be wary
of where the news came from.
2.
News organizations should have very loose
policies regarding their journalists responding to criticism from readers,
media critics, and other organizations, very loose policies. Journalists have
been receiving hate mail for years, but because of Twitter, Facebook, and blogs
everybody has a public voice on the Internet. As a result of this public voice journalists
have gotten themselves suspended by responding poorly to the criticism. If
reporters are using Ralph Potter’s Potter Box to write the stories, they should
probably use the Potter Box focusing more on the values and principles that
their employers would expect them to respond to critics with. Now that it's
2015 most news organizations have social media policies in place to make their
employers aware of the repercussions they will face if they respond to people online
poorly.
3.
Promoting a story is absolutely an
appropriate use of Twitter. In fact, journalists and not only promote their own
stories, but they will also show their followers other journalists who did a
great job on stories regardless of whether they work for the same outlet or not.
However, reporters may get themselves in trouble with their company if they are
constantly promoting other people's work simply because it takes away from the
attention and revenue by sending readers away from the company, and that may
indicate that you are not as loyal to the company that is signing your
paychecks. If I feel that I did a good job on a story, I will draw attention to
it in whatever way I feel appropriate. However, many journalists do not need to
self promote their articles. Every media company has their own Twitter account,
Facebook page, and probably even an Instagram account that they will use to
promote your work. In TV and radio every channel and station has their own
social media account as well as an account for the shows they put on. Each of these
accounts tend to promote highlights or segments of the work they have done to
keep their consumers up to date with what was done that day.
Macro
1.
I think part of the appeal of social networking
sites is that they are an extension of the user. If we take a look at social
networking sites we will see people posting pictures of themselves, updating
statuses that tell other people what is going on in their life, and commenting
on these statuses and pictures. These users are, in essence, promoting themselves
even if they are not a journalist posting a link to their most recent article. People
will post about their jobs and what's going in their jobs, so why can't
journalists do the same and post their work? Their work should incorporate
their values and principles, so there should be no shame in promoting it on
social media networks. The duties that were discussed in Chapter 1 will vary
from person to person because these duties are based on people's morals, and not
everybody shares the same morals. However, if we are to look at the additional
duties brought forth by Patterson we see “the duty to tell the truth, veracity
(which may be implied by fidelity); and the duty to nurture, to help others
achieve some measure of self-worth and achievement” (p. 13). Both of these
duties are what we should strive to do in our personal and professional lives,
so why should it be a problem to post something that that includes these duties
on social networking sites?
2.
The ability to find out something first is a
pretty important thing among my family and friends. Oftentimes I will receive a
text that simply says, "Did you see Twitter?" That's where we are in
2015. Of course, I will get a follow-up text that says something like, "Do
you think it's true?" or, "This can't be real." Sadly enough, I
am thankful for those follow-up texts because it tells me that they are not
gullible enough to fall for things just because they are “trending” on Twitter.
As I mentioned before, we now live in a 24 hour news cycle where journalists
have to be first to report a story, rather than making sure their facts are
correct, or citing where they got the report if they were not first report it. I
hope that I'm wrong when I say that the future of journalism looks grim because
of the constant need to be first to report, but I don't think that I am. Being
first to report a story is the ticket to a major payday in the national news
outlets. The key to finding ethical journalists whose loyalties are to the
facts and reporting things the right way will require a lot of sifting through
searches as we move forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment