In Focus

3 social media nightmares

Keep your thoughts to yourself

In an attempt to grapple with this blurring of the personal and the professional, New York Times assistant managing editor Craig Whitney sent a memo to staffers outlining how the company's ethics policy plays out in social media. The memo immediately went viral.

The memo asked journalists to, in effect, strip out from their online personae anything that might help others get to know them as people. Instead, they were instructed to always think of themselves as the voice of the paper -- and to stick to their own patch. For example, news journalists are not supposed to editorialize, even on a personal web page, because they don't write for the Opinion section of the newspaper.

In general, Whitney's memo is a thoughtful and reasonable document, pondering nuances such as the fact that a Facebook friend may not be an actual friend -- so it might be OK to write about one. In general, it's a reminder of how the Times' very old-school journalistic rules play out in the new media world. There's nothing new here, in that respect. Some newspaper editors feel that they shouldn't even vote in order to maintain their journalistic neutrality.

What's new is the immediate viral redistribution of what was intended as an internal document. The memo was reprinted in full online by The Poynter Institute, a professional development organization for journalists.

The newspaper was criticized by the blogosphere for being, um, behind the times. "No wonder even The New York Times is suffering," the chorus went. "They just don't get new media." And we can imagine its stately editors wringing their hands over the public airing of their internal laundry. Nevertheless, you could argue that this very traditional approach is one of the Times' brand attributes, and this was all some terrific social media burnishing of its image.

 

Comments

Norman Birnbach
Norman Birnbach March 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM

I think the Andrews-FedEx kerfuffle shows a couple of important lessons such as:

1 Don't forget that people other than close friends are reading your tweets, and can take them out of context or be offended by them.
2. Be careful in responding to perceived negative statements about your company or something related to your company. In this case, the reaction to the tweet became the story, and I think a lot of people were turned off by what some saw as an overreaction to a tweet about Memphis. In other words, there are some statements that are best left alone, otherwise you ignite the "Streisand effect," defined by Wikipedia as "a phenomenon on the Internet where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized.
3. There may not be bad publicity, even on social media sites, as evidenced by the fact that Andrews got 500 more followers on Twitter.

John Kerr
John Kerr February 23, 2009 at 8:09 PM

Great article Susan - really calls out for a social media/digital case study compendium (both good and bad) in order to share learnings. Endorse view that this should be a regular column - engaging and insightful. Thanks! John

Kip Edwardson
Kip Edwardson February 19, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Nightmares? How many people actually read these tweets or blogs? How many FedEx employers are from Atlanta and even care? How many that are from Atlanta agree with him?

As for the blogger being paid by Kmart: he gave full disclosure. The egg is on the face of his readers, who kept reader AFTER reading the disclosure. But Susan, you never indicate how much backlash was received, then accuse Kmart of being less-than "social media savvy." What does a "social media savvy" company look like?

But here is where hammer meets nail: "Social media encourages us to be genuine, but individual authenticity may be at odds with our responsibility to an employer." If "us" refers to collective "us" that work for corporations ("employer") then you have to understand that the "employer" also employ lawyers and PR professionals, Stop talking to marketers, especially when the same metrics as other media aren't there.

Randy Gage
Randy Gage February 19, 2009 at 5:48 AM

There are a lot of people that believe that bloggers, newsletter and e-zine publishers were put here on earth to provide them with free information and services all day, every day. True prosperity is based on providing a value for value exchange. So I for one have no problem with people making money, just as I do. It certainly seems he handled the whole situation with integrity.

Tao Wong
Tao Wong February 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Thank you for the well written article. It is interesting how the line blurs, especially when you're a SMI - in many ways, people are buying from you. Which makes threading the line between too personal and too business much more difficult.

Susan Kuchinskas
Susan Kuchinskas February 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM

oh, shoot, Ryan, you are correct. Correction to come shortly

Doug Schumacher
Doug Schumacher February 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I think its interesting to note that 2 of the 3 cases involved individuals, not companies. And in the 3rd example, the issue involved a large company, but it was really about them NOT fully engaging in social media.

Ryan Olah
Ryan Olah February 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Check your facts, as far as I know Steve Rubel had nothing to do with the writing of "Naked Conversations". Perhaps you meant Robert Scoble or Shel Isreal?

Susan Kuchinskas
Susan Kuchinskas February 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Gordon, thanks for the kind words. Re making it a regular column, I honestly think that we're seeing less and less obvious mistakes. As in every other aspect of online media, people get the message really fast.

John, I totally agree with you that a. None of these qualifies as a "nightmare." (But you gotta give us the sexy headline, hey?) b. Brogan got slammed by people with an axe to grind -- or just twitchy fingers. I tried to make that clear in the article; in fact, I think that marketers may overreact to these Twitter pecking parties. I gave Chris the last word on it, but I would have said it myself: "Bloggers eating their own."

John Shanley
John Shanley February 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Do you really think Brogan got slammed by the twitterati because he took $ from KMart then wrote about KMart--or because some twitterati have an axe to grind with the outspoken, opinionated Brogan? Cute, demure Julia Roy (who also was chosen by KMart to shop and write) has as big a following, and many of the same followers, and she didn't get slammed. In fact, she's auctioning herself off on ebay right now for twitter-friendly charity called charity:Water. Not sure if Brogan's qualifies as a "social nightmare." To me, social nightmare (if I'm a GM person) is CGC Tahoe ads on Tahoe site shredding gas-guzzling Tahoes by using great, engaging creative and watching your traffic spike.

Gordon Phillips
Gordon Phillips February 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Great subject. You should make this a regular contribution.
In an arena where everyone can have instant publication of almost any material they choose, it is inevitable that boundaries will be stretched. The challenge for those of us who choose to contribute in these forums may really be the weighing of our impact in the long run. In many ways i think old ideas still hold. Publicity is publicity. Then again, we just saw the facebook TOS backlash. Empowering.