Short Take: Twits of the Times

The New York Times has issued new social media guidelines to its reporters.

To the newsroom:

The New York Times has been a dominant force on social media for years. Our newsroom accounts have tens of millions of followers. Many of our journalists are influential voices on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms.

Tens of millions is a lot of followers. Whether that number pans out would require someone to do the math, but regardless, anyone who writes for such a big soapbox is likely to be taken seriously, whether they’re a journalist writing about politics or Roxane Gay.

We believe that to remain the world’s best news organization, we have to maintain a vibrant presence on social media.

Note that the wordsmith chose the word “believe” rather than “think.”

But we also need to make sure that we are engaging responsibly on social media, in line with the values of our newsroom.

While the word “responsibly” seems to align best with “no drunk twitting,” the word “values” aligns best with “beliefs.” After all, “values” are the antithesis of accuracy. So what are those “values”?

But social media presents potential risks for The Times. If our journalists are perceived as biased or if they engage in editorializing on social media, that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom.

We’ve always made clear that newsroom employees should avoid posting anything on social media that damages our reputation for neutrality and fairness.

There ya go. Be as biased as you want in your reporting, but pretend to be neutral on social media so as not to be perceived as biased. As the New York Times likes to say, appearances matter.

There is an aside in there by Maggie Haberman which provides a pretty good rule of thumb for anyone on social media.

Maggie Haberman says: “Before you post, ask yourself: Is this something that needs to be said, is it something that needs to be said by you, and is it something that needs to be said by you right now? If you answer no to any of the three, it’s best not to rush ahead.”

And with that, I have nothing further to add.

21 thoughts on “Short Take: Twits of the Times”

    2. Elpey P.

      Fortunately she left the door open at the end for those of us who are capable of posting our inanities in a more leisurely fashion.

  2. Joseph

    Appearances do matter. As with impropriety, news organizations should strive not only to avoid bias, but even the appearance of bias. All that’s left for them to figure out is that realize that people judge bias more by the content of the news than the tweets of their journalists.

    1. SHG Post author

      If you’re forced to choose bias or the appearance of bias, which is worse? Until bias itself is removed, the appearance is merely transparency.

      1. Joseph

        There are some decisions made by the 45th President of the United States where the reporting on it will look biased even if the journalist is neutral based on the sheer irregularity of those decisions. This problem is actually not really relevant to the New York Times itself because it comes from the other side of the political spectrum, but even if the horse has bolted by now, I’d argue that there was a point in time where the appearance of bias was the greater evil: the appearance of bias crippled trust in the media, whereas actual bias would only have been a little more charitable to candidate Trump than he deserved.

        (This is assuming that the mainstream coverage of candidate Trump was reasonably fair and that the media could have retained greater trust if they’d softballed him a bit. I suppose one could just as easily argue that mainstream coverage of candidate Trump was hideously biased and that bias itself was the big problem.)

          1. Joseph

            I assume Ron was being sarcastic, but every now and then Trump does in fact do or say something wrong or dumb (perish the thought) and the media hounds him for it when they would be better off commenting on it in a “neutral” manner rather than pointing out the wrongness or dumbness of his comments.

            Do I have to specially dredge up an example of Trump saying or doing something dumb? Our library of examples isn’t large enough to pick one off the shelf? Fine, I’ll give it a shot: on the post-election side, Trump’s interviews where he attacks his own Justice Department employees wasn’t stellar; on the pre-election side, Trump’s comment about Mexican rapists wasn’t exactly an award-winner. News coverage here wasn’t charitable to Trump, and rightly so, but if it HAD been more charitable to Trump these institutions might have retained more trust among Trump supporters.

        2. Ron

          1. Trump is stupid.
          2. Everything Trump says or does is stupid.
          3. You can’t blame journalists for appearing biased by making Trump look stupid because Trump is stupid.

          Thanks for that insight.

  3. JAF

    I filter my entire online commentary through the SJ guidelines and our erstwhile host. Shockingly, it’s served me well.

  4. phv3773

    It’s impossible to write without bias. Writing requires context, and context implies bias. The trick to being the NY Times is to find context and bias that’s so familiar to their readers that they don’t notice, or, at least, don’t take exception.

    1. SHG Post author

      I agree, but only to a limited extent. It’s a matter of nouns v. adjectives, verbs v. adverbs, hard facts v. facts from facially biased sources (how often does the NYT cite to SPLC to “prove” some group is a hate group?). That’s not context. That’s deliberate bias.

  6. Wild Bill

    Is this the latest installment in Times Bashing? Pretty soon, we’ll. have to start calling SJ The Greenfield Times! Leave the Times alone. They’re good at what they do. As for Trump’s sanity, or lack thereof, plenty of “sane” people have been wrong about any number of things. Some of those people are doctors, lawyers–and oh yes Virginia, judges.

Comments are closed.