Disconnecting from the audience

The Twitterverse is abuzz today about the Washington Post’s revised policy for staffers about the use of social media tools such as Twitter. According to the story there was some internal concern about a potential “perception problem” if staffers were tweeting things that might create the sense that journalists were not covering the news unfairly. From the Ombudsman’s piece, here is a key part of the policy:

“When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.”

Jay Rosen noted earlier today that this is the Post retreating back into the fortress. I am not sure I entirely catch his meaning, but if I understand him right he might be thinking along the same lines I am.

The main problem I have with this policy is that this is a retreat for transparency (a policy which *strike one * was not linked to in the ombudsman’s piece). While the Post might worry about a perception problem, the decision here makes clear that the only worry is a perception problem. True, someone might misinterpret a tweet and not take the time to frame it against actual coverage, but for some of us those tweets are a window on the Post’s news coverage.

That is, if the example cited has an editor tweeting a more liberal view of health care reform, the audience then has access to information via transparency by which it can judge the Post’s coverage (i.e., was it fair, comprehensive, and contextual even if we know what the editor thinks about the debate?). When the Post takes away this candid look at an editor’s musings, it takes away that window. It doesn’t mean the editor no longer has this view of their world, of course, it just means it has been kept inside and the public doesn’t get to see it.

The accusations of bias against the Post, from all parts of the political spectrum, will continue. The new Twitter policy will not change this. In fact, the lack of transparency here will probably make it worse now that they’re hiding their own views and the actual policy.

This is essentially a microcosm of what we’ve been debating in journalism the past decade. Many, including myself, have come to see the objectivity norm in jouralism to be an impossible standard and unproductive frame by which to judge news. Instead, the push for transparency of method in constructing news is seen as more attainable, a more realistic metric for news quality, and ultimately a better deal for the democracy journalism intends to serve.

The beauty of social media is that it has the capability of liberating journalism from the sham of objectivity. It lets us listen to our audience, show a little humanity, and give consumers a glimpse inside the mind of the news producer. It is a tool for reconnection.

What I see from the ombudsman’s post is a lack of understanding about what social media can do. It indicates to me that the Post doesn’t really know what to do with Twitter other than to make it a platform for doing what it’s always done. New medium, same old way of doing things.

This decision is a net loss for readers and the Post. As we set about remaking news, we can’t figure out how to make it work if decisions like this continue to drag us back to the dark ages of news’ relationship with the audience.