Just read this tweet from @nprnews: CNN Career Ends After Tweet Praising Hezbollah Cleric http://n.pr/dtpQ17 and thought it was an interesting and valuable reminder for us all.
The short story is 20-year journalist Octavia Nasr was often called on by CNN to provide the Muslim or Arab viewpoint on issues of the Middle East. But when she provided a viewpoint through Twitter that was sympathetic to a Hezbollah cleric, they fired her saying she had "lost her standing as a credible journalist."
Now I'm not a journalism expert, but personal feelings would typically be left out of reports...or at least 10 years ago they would. That's not how media, communications and the public dialogue works anymore, right? Isn't that what this whole class is about? Nonetheless, Tweeting is just as dangerous as sending that angry e-mail so maybe we should use the old school rules of write it, walk away and then look at it again before sending.
Posts
Get an all-in-one AI tool for life for just £32
-
1MinAI gives you lifetime access to multiple LLM models, including Meta AI,
Google AI, ChatGPT, and more.
2 hours ago
4 comments:
I read this too and thought it was such an interesting case. It really shows how important it is to establish how each individual uses the different social media platforms in their lives. As I said in class, I keep Facebook private for close friends and family but view Twitter as a way to enhance "my brand" as well as create open communication since I don't protect my tweets. However, a journalist has a whole other set of dilemmas because should they ever have a nonpublic persona? Rather limiting for them if they have a cause they feel passionate about but at the end of the day, social media IS media and that's something they need to be constantly aware of.
I think it's interesting that Nasr has since said that her Tweet was misunderstood.
Stories go through a series of editors. Yet, what a journalist says via social media does not. For many journalists, that makes Twitter a useful tool--they can share behind-the-scenes details about stories they are working on, communicate with their audience in real time and crowd-source for information.
Yet that clashes with what many people define as a journalist's role in society--an unbiased observer who filters controversial issues into a balanced report.
I think what defines a "good" journalist is not a lack of bias. No person is unbiased. Instead, it is whether journalists can still do their job despite their opinions/religions/beliefs/political persuasions.
But journalists using social media shows the "man behind the curtain," so to speak. No matter how well she does her job, her audience will now question her ability to do it.
You make a good point. Feelings do need to be avoiding in journalism as it seeks to be objective and not as personal or opinionated, but the bigger point is well stated. Tweeting, and public comment making in general, is something that comes with as many risks as benefits. Caution in all things is the best policy in public relations, journalism and any field that speaks to a diverse population
Thanks for the comments! I especially appreciate our journalist's point of view and agree that a journalist's role is to convey information objectively. But how can journalists compete in today's world if they are objective?
Believe me, I know it's the right thing to do. But the reality is that everyone can "report" the news these days and it's always more interesting with someone's personal point of view included. Maybe Twitter shouldn't be used by journalists for their point of view and only for the objective story-sharing?
Post a Comment