Journalists may show bias without realizing it

Sorry I've been MIA for the past month or so. I just closed on my first home, so when I'm not in the newsroom coaching citizen journalists, I'm either packing or paralyzed by my indecisiveness over paint colors. But that's a conversation for another day.

The Columbia Missourian, for which I was a student journalist from 2002 to 2004, recently revised its conflict-of-interest policy to include special points about journalists and their use of social media. If you're as opinionated as I am, you may find these additions interesting:

• Political viewpoints should not be apparent through students or staffers' public profiles on social networking Web sites. Be careful what you post. Ask yourself: What would a source think?
• If you don’t think an editor should see (what's on your profile), why would you want a source to see it?
• Students or staff may be "friended" by a source or a subject they cover. It may even be in the interest of students and staff to "friend" a source in order to follow their business or campaign. In such cases, students and staff are accountable for viewpoints expressed on their private profiles as well. Again: What would a source think?

The policy draft is to be reworked in another week or two.

Now, I'm a passionate person. I have strong opinions. I'm trained to keep them off the page and out of my Facebook fan page updates -- but since personal Facebook and Twitter profiles are about creating your own personal brand, I have in the past let myself show my beliefs on everything from gun control to my choice of Starbucks vs Caribou, through "liking" certain brands, following various organizations, and joining particular groups. I have since opted out of those groups that express political views, because in the three years I have been on Facebook, I've branched my network out enough to where a source could very easily see my profile through a friend in the community. I've also recently taken on the role of Opinions editor, and I don't feel comfortable with readers knowing where I stand on the issue of climate change, for example, as I run letters to the editor that might support what I believe, especially if that ratio happens to be 3-1.

But, I have to ask, how far is going too far in all of this?

I completely agree with The Missourian's revision that political viewpoints should stay off a journalist's Facebook profile. But what about the new "Like" feature, which allows you to show your support for virtually any brand, company or organization out there? For example, I recently had a great experience at a particular hospital that happens to be an advertiser at my publication (well, the fact that I was AT a hospital wasn't great, but the staff was fantastic). My question here is, is it technically a conflict of interest for me to "like" that hospital on my Facebook page, but not the others, who also advertise with us?

And what if I attend the Chicago Gay Pride Parade, one of the biggest summer events in my neighborhood? Or if I participate in the Walk for Israel with my family? I potentially may not even agree with the beliefs behind either event; I may simply participate as a way of being social, in the physical sense for once! But must I not post those photos to my Facebook page, because I am a journalist? According to The Missourian's proposed policy... I don't think so.

A quality journalist knows how to keep his or her mouth shut when needed. But journalists also know how to have fun, and most of us do have lives, contrary to popular belief. And Facebook, as a company, has been branching out more and more to offer more features, but less privacy comes with that.

Furthermore, my role at The Beacon has put me in somewhat of a spotlight. My face is one of the publication's Twitter avatars and sometimes I write a column. To quote one Ron Burgandy, "People know me." Sort of. At least, some of them, them being readers, know me enough to friend me on Facebook, particularly if I've messaged them in response to a comment on our fan page.

"I'm kind of a big deal."

I never really considered that any of the 50-something groups I belong to on Facebook - most of which I never really follow - could in theory lead to a phone call to my boss. But then I have other journalist friends who are very open with their opinions via Facebook and Twitter about topics that could be considered journalistically biased if seen by a source or reader.

Where is the line drawn? Do you agree with The Missourian's policy revise? Should other publications follow suit? Or should social media, from a personal standpoint, be considered a private, personal "life"?

Is social media the open door to a more profitable hyper-local newsroom?

Perhaps with newspapers' adoption of social media as a business tool, it's time to visit the debate over whether news organizations should start charging money for its Web site material.

I know, I know, such a discussion mostly leads to a deep hole in which sits a group of newspaper journalists more miserable than they were before the discussion began. So many differing opinions, but at the end of the day, our news is still free online, and it's up to the publishers of the world to change that. The overtime hours spent slaving over our computers day after day for very little compensation is still just a labor of love, and no matter how much or how little readers pay to read our work - we'll still be back at it the next morning.

With that in mind, I merely voice my opinion on the issue, and offer how social media's integration into the newsroom might change yours.

A newspaper's goal when embracing social media should be to engage and attract readers, bringing them to its Web site, and hopefully also lead them to a subscription to the print product. But does that really make sense? These readers, most of whom do not have a print subscription and have no intention of getting one, in this scenario are getting to interact with and enjoy their local newspaper for free.

It would be worth questioning whether social networking tools are becoming the new "free" form of getting news and other information, while the goods (i.e., the full Internet product) cost them money. For example, a newspaper could do the same as it is already doing now by linking to stories on its Web site from its Twitter and Facebook profiles. Sometimes the story's lede is included, offering the most important and relevant information up front. If the consumer wanted to know more, they would then go to the news Web site and log in under their paid account. The newspaper would also continue to use social networking as a platform to further engage readers, get to know their dynamic, promote coming features and find sources.

I'm not sure whether this would ever work for national and international news sources, as news of that spectrum can be found in so many places online today. But I do think it could work for local newspapers, particularly smaller publications that focus on small towns or suburbs. Those are the print publications that are strongest, in my opinion, mainly because:

• Readers really can't get that basic, hyper-local information anywhere else.
• Residents want to know about their schools, neighbors and where their local tax money is going.
• One can find more loyalty to a local newspaper that has covered a particular town for decades.

PaidContent.org released this analysis of how newspapers that do charge for online content are faring. You'll notice the article points out that "the newspapers tend to be located in smaller, often rural markets; online-only subscriptions are typically priced at a substantial discount to the print edition." Some of the papers listed have experienced a drop in Web site traffic since implementing a pay wall - but Assistant Managing Editor Donn Friedman of the Albuquerque Journal pointed out, “We are still committed to the ... idea that our content has value.” What an important idea to hold onto.

If journalists would stand up for the hard work they put into bringing quality content to readers, I don't believe we would be in this debacle of trying to find a way to win the fight against online media. I understand that one newspaper doesn't want to take the plunge before its competitor, for fear that readers will flock to the free source. But why don't all businesses just take the plunge together? Our jobs are far too important and relevant, in an online society or not, to allow ourselves to have such weak confidence to believe that readers won't pay for the information they want and deserve.

I really feel that, while very important, social media is further enhancing readers' expectations that information should be at their fingertips for free any time they want it. This is the world we live in. But if news organizations did put up a pay wall for online content, perhaps it would once again put us in a higher classification of reliable sources, rather than mixing us in with the blogs, chat rooms, amateur Web sites and inaccurate tweets that are out there. It would make us THE relevant source again.

Do other journalists agree? Is the adoption of social media inside a newsroom what we've been waiting for - an arrow pointing down the path that will lead us toward a better, safer, more profitable future in the face of an increasingly paperless society? What about the average reader - would you pay to read your hyper-local news online, if you were also guaranteed free access to "on the surface" news via Facebook and Twitter?

YouTube spreads word of social media's relevance

This week I thought I would share a few YouTube videos that really capture the essence of social media's stronghold on American society.

If you're a social media geek like me, you've probably seen this "Social Media Revolution" video. I love it! My favorite moment is at 3:29: "We no longer search for the news ... the news finds us." This is so important to remember when thinking about innovative ways to bring readers back to your news organization's Web site. We talk so much about flashy photo galleries, captivating blog topics, etc. - but to expect your readers to go looking on their own for those features is unrealistic. These days, you just have to bring it to them (just like we bring papers to their doorsteps), and the easiest and most results-oriented way to do so is to get it up on their Facebook or Twitter feed.



I really believe there are many print journalists who believe that social media is a fad. I've been seeing more and more of these print journalists jump onto the bandwagon, but I'm afraid I don't see the passion for it as often as I would hope. At 3:40, the above video makes a simple but excellent point: Social media isn't a fad; it's a fundamental way in which we communicate. Based on the statistics in this video, it's obvious that journalists need to be a part of this phenomenon - not so much because it's "a fad" or because we need to know what readers are talking about, but because it's a significant communications tool that can truly enhance our work, even in the days when news media is shifting to online.

'Social media = punk rock'
What's really amazing to me is when journalists don't believe in what they see unfold during high-profile breaking news, such as the 2009 events of Michael Jackson's death, the Balloon Boy farce, or more seriously, Iran's Twitter revolution. No matter the level of seriousness of the event, users jump onto social media by the masses in times of breaking news (See: Make most of social media during breaking news), not only to share information in seconds, but to also have a voice in the event. Even before "Balloon Boy" Falcon Heene was found, a trending topic of #saveballoonboy was created in minutes on Twitter, and T-shirts that said "Go, Falcon, Go!" had hit the Web within hours. News consumers have the ability, the voice, and the power to make a difference in how we as a society absorb change - let's be the journalists who help shape that voice to be as informed as possible. Take this video, "Social media is the new punk rock," to see what I mean. Rock on.



As much as I push for journalists to really embrace social media as a necessary part of the job, I promise I would never take it this far:



Have a great week!

Journalists' voices louder with every little tweet

Journalists are used to operating behind the scenes. Let's face it: We document life's excitement, drama, tragedy and comedy, all the while leaving our perspectives out of it, save for a byline. We confine our own opinions to our cubical mates, our editors and our families.

For this reason, I have struggled with the concept of humanizing myself through social media branding. More than a year ago, I began tweeting for The Naperville Sun in a robotic fashion, merely blasting out headlines a few times a day. I quickly realized that while it is a thin line to walk, social media allows journalist moderators to let their sense of humor shine, and provide acceptable, objective commentary about developing news or issues in town that deserve investigation.

As I mentioned in my blog post of 2/8/10, a Facebook or Twitter account takes free speech to a new level, giving readers a new avenue to get in touch with their local newspaper. We should not deny them of that. But I also like to view "the rules" of Facebook and Twitter interaction much like the rules of our news blogs or story comment fields. I like how The Quad-City Times lays out its rules for the blogging reader best:

• Keep it clean.
• Don't threaten.
• Be truthful.
• Be nice.
• Let us know if it's getting out of hand.
• Share what you know.
• Stay focused (and on topic).

But what do you do when these rules are ignored on Facebook or Twitter? If a person veers off topic to point out what's wrong with your brand, but he or she isn't necessarily insulting ... how do you respond, if at all?
Take this recent example of an off-topic complaint about The Beacon-News on its Facebook page, and how it spiraled into a conversation about how much these readers dislike The Beacon's tabloid format, which launched in September (please click on the image if the type is too small for you):

In my experience watching what other news outlets do with social media and how my own followers respond to various approaches of communication, I find it highly respectable when a social journalist interacts with a fan or follower, no matter the circumstance. Of course, for some newspapers such as the Chicago Sun-Times, which has thousands of fans and followers, this is a much more difficult task. But it should be done as often as possible, no matter the size of your following.

It's also important to note that a complaint in an @reply on Twitter is relatively private, i.e. your other followers won't see it unless you RT it, which wouldn't be necessary. But on your Facebook page, it is out there. Your fans will see how you chose to handle it, and your actions will no doubt create an opinion of your branding skills.

In a case such as this that includes a complaint via Facebook about something that no one in your newsroom has much control over, I choose the avenue of a polite response. It shows that we look at what fans are writing on our page, and we're taking their posts seriously:

You'll notice that regardless of my even tone, one of the readers continued to rant, even using against me a previous column I wrote like my blog post from 2/8/10 that criticizes the city of Aurora, Ill., for eliminating comments altogether. It definitely irked me, but I let it go. He's right. The social reader does have the freedom to interact with his or her hometown newspaper, or with the White House, or with Crate and Barrel via Facebook, as long as there is a Facebook fan page available. And, regardless of his tone with me, I remained consistent with the direction I want The Beacon-News' Facebook page to go, and proceeded to kindly answer his "on topic" question.

My goal and what all social journalists' goal should be is to make sure that we embrace social media to our benefit. When it comes to media especially, many outsiders love to talk us down and call us names. It will continue to happen whether or not we have a Facebook profile. The secret is to keep at our own mission for the benefit of all readers, even those who might be full of gripes. It's not always possible to respond to every complaint, but it is possible when you have an easily attainable social platform that broadcasts your human side to your entire following. And it's always possible to remain positive and polite.

I'm curious if anyone has other suggestions of how to handle the complainers and naysayers on Facebook and Twitter. Please post your advice in the comment field of this blog! And remember, on topic, please ;-)

I'll leave you with my own guidelines of how to stay human while on the social media bandwagon, regardless of whether your following is mostly pessimistic or optimistic:

• Talk to your readers. If you want them to get in on the conversation, do so yourself. Don't hide behind your computer screen. This also will inevitably help you get to know your audience better, which will inevitably lead to a better product.
• Don't ignore complaints or questions. Answer as many as possible.  If you don't have an answer, pass it on to another editor or reporter who does. An example:

This was a case in which I was originally trying to help the reporter, Rowena Vergara, by RTing her mission of finding comments for a story she was working on related to School District 308. One of my followers needed more details before answering, which I then realized I could not provide. I simply RTed it back to her, and she got back to him with an answer.

• When RTing a breaking news headline, or tweeting your own bit of news information from your brand's Web site, add some clever commentary. It will make your link look more enticing, and it will show your followers that you do, in fact, have a personality. @CraigNewman does a great job of this with the @SunTimes Twitter page.
• Make your avatar your face, if your work Twitter account is also a personal one. Check out my Twitter page for The Beacon-News: www.twitter.com/Beacon_Readers. The bio states exactly what followers are following: Readers' Editor Cynthia Goldberg (there is a seperate Twitter account just for news headlines @BeaconNews). I made my avatar my smiling face to offer some personality, a human aspect, and a window into the newsroom. Another example of this tactic is meterologist @GingerZee from NBC 5 news in Chicago. So, if you're a reporter or an editor and you plan only to use Twitter for news purposes, don't feel like you have to use your brand's logo or masthead. Put your face out there, and you just might start to see more interaction.

If you want to learn more about humanizing yourself in the face of social media marketing, I highly recommend this Poynter Webinar from November. It touches on how to handle "the haters," too.