'The New York Times' Facebook problem

I'm an unabashed New York Times fan boy. Warts and all, it remains the best edited daily newspaper in this country. Disagree? Then come find me on Twitter and let's mix it up. (My handle is "coopeydoop").

You won't have a chance to do the same with many Times reporters and editors--on Twitter or any other social network, for that matter. Batting it back and forth with the hoi polloi just isn't part of the drill. Not, mind you, because they lack for opinions or have no stomach for engagement.

The Poynter Institute reposted the text of a memo from Craig Whitney, the paper's assistant managing editor, to his newsroom, in which he urges extreme caution in how Times employees use Facebook and other social-networking sites. For starters:

"One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook page, and that personal blogs and "tweets" represent you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page, leave blank the section that asks about your political views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your or The Times's political impartiality in reporting the news. Remember that although you might get useful leads by joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on your page, connoting that you "joined" it -- potentially complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial group."

Whitney is an accomplished Times veteran whose work I've admired over the years. But this memo sums up some of the very reasons why so many believe the mainstream media is doomed to irrelevance.

The Times achieved primacy in American journalism by getting the story (usually) right and delivering the news with depth and nuance. By itself, the formula that worked so well for the Times in the 20th century may not be enough in the 21st. That's because the fragmentation of media has created a multiplicity of voices on the Internet, some good, others less so, where the authority of the Times depends on more than a prototypical article.

So it is that the decision to separate the Times from its public strikes me as completely arbitrary. What's more, it makes for an utterly boring one-way conversation--and that's no conversation at all. Whitney may not want the chief White House correspondent riffing in public about the failings of the 43rd president, but how about a little give? For instance, I'd be shocked if Frank Rich does not think George Bush was an abject idiot. Or that William Kristol does not believe Bill Clinton remains a skirt-chasing hippy hedonist. Seems they also ought to have the green light to tweet to their hearts' content.

But it's not just Facebook and Twitter. Consider the following:

"Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a personal Web page that you could not write in The Times -- don't editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News Department. Anything you post online can and might be publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used against you by those who wish you or The Times ill -- whether it's text, photographs, or video. That includes things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend through TimesPeople."

In other words, don't write anything that's passionate or pointed in ways that might stir people beyond what the Times provides in its news columns. Pardon my sarong but that's like serving up a diet of rice cakes to people hungry for General Tso's chicken.

[MadLyb]

Personally, I don't see anything that specifically bans then from using these sites, but a strongly worded memo of caution as to the consequences.

I think all of us could us a small dose of reality that 'anything' you publish on the web will pretty much follow you 'forever' and it could affect your job, your friends and even your family at any point in the future.

And to many of us, blogs are a colorful addition to the news, but they aren't news in the strictest sense because there is no firewall between news and commentary. That doesn't mean I don't value them, because I do. They bring an alternate view and cover many topics mainstream media either can't or won't. But, at the end of the day I'll take a diligently researched and vetted article reported in a balanced and impartial manner on NPR than just about anything I read in a blog. No offense.

[cidman2001]

"But, at the end of the day I'll take a diligently researched and vetted article reported in a balanced and impartial manner on NPR than just about anything I read in a blog. No offense."

Isn't that the exact opposite of saying, "I get all my news fair and balanced from FOX News."? The fact is in this day and age there is simply no such thing as unbiased news reports. Everyone has their own slant on things. Anybody who considers one news source the most credible has their head in the sand.

[hardedge]

Anything a person does that contains the word "tweet" as part of its action line merits doing some severe scrutiny vis a vis his/her credibility. We were once a nation of unwashed. Sadly, we're slouching toward becoming a nation of the unbrained.

[skillingssucks]

"Sadly, we're slouching toward becoming a nation of the unbrained."

Consider yourself one of them.

[Pishkado]

What the Times is saying is, unfortunately, the reality. The possible consequences of social site postings that seem innocent at the time have been documented in any number of cases - not all of which involve job seekers who posted photos of themselves getting high. Most people don't realize this. Why should Times reporters be an exception? Why shouldn't their managers clue them in?

[bj1126]

See its stuff like this that is hurting the Times. The idea that they can project any sense of impartiality anymore is a joke. We all know they lean liberal. It's ok. Just admit it and move on. It hurts their credibility even more to pretend impartiality when it is so clear.

[sandpiper64]

I think the NYTimes just doesn?t want to help prove the argument that they carry the water for the Democratic party. The NYTimes getting the story right most of the time? Charles I bet you think your stories are middle of the road too!! I guess that is to be expected since he drinks the same kool-aid. Eventually this paper will fold from a bankrupt business model.

[inachu]

I have heard worse. Getting fired because you refuse to visit compulsatory meetings done off the clock verbally made mandatory by the president of the company to listen to Scientology junk. Or being kicked out of the church because your profile online does not sit very well with the parishoners and all you did was pose in a bikini on vacation trip to Hawaii. Or being fired from that security job but posting internet security warning on your own website and the VP reads it and questions your motives.
Some people are so lonely they love to fire people for no real valid reason.

[phoenixMD]

I think there is too much editorializing in the news as it is. Unless the journalist is writing an op-ed piece, I actually don't want to know and don't care where they stand. I want the news, and I'm capable of forming my own opinions about it, thanks. I'm under no illusion that's it's entirely impartial, but I'm increasingly annoying that so-called "journalists" aren't even trying. Part of being a professional anything is that your personal opinions aren't necessarily relevant to the job and they are not part of the news or in fact news of their own. No one is asking people not to have an opinion, we just don't want it rubbed in our faces. Not to mention at least try to give the impression that you aren't a moron. (General you, not Coop specifically). I don't think the Times is asking too much. Now if we could get actors to do the same, I'd be very pleased.

[aj37viggen]

"...do nothing that might cast doubt on your or The Times's political impartiality in reporting the news."

"The Times' political impartiality"???? Thank God for one good laugh today!

[Pishkado]

The Times does not claim to be politically impartial, and never has. All it claims is that its opinions, which are out in the open on the editorial page for anyone to see, pretty much stay out of its news articles. Objectively, unless one expects reporters to drink a glass of Bush-Cheney Kool-Aid before work every day, most serious observers (i.e., those with no axe to grind one way or the other) would agree they do a good job of that overall.

[aj37viggen]

Pishkado needs to keep in mind that the Times is no longer neatly segregated into "news articles" and "editorial page." Even if we accept that the choice of what "news articles" to run, what facts to select in reporting them, and what spin to apply to them is bias-free (which is a bit of a stretch for serious observers -- especially ones who have journalism degrees, which I do) one still needs to consider the full range of Times-branded content: the magazine, the website, and particularly the blogs carried on the website.

The blogs in particular seem to have very wide latitude in allowing "reporters" to select content according to their own biases, and to insert fawning or snarky asides when live-blogging political events, for example. Blogs which allow reader comment also exhibit strong bias: comments for or against the subject matter generally appear as long as they're not abusive, but anyone calling out the Times blogger for bias, even painfully obvious bias, can expect to have his comment censored ruthlessly (ask me how I know this.)

I concede that wide-ranging personal subjectivity is very much in the spirit of blogging... yet these blogs, as stated, appear under the Times brand, and there seems to be no clear-cut policy on whether the Times regards them as subject to its news-reporting standards, its feature-writing standards, its op-ed standards, or no standards at all.

It's this deliberate vagueness in regard to reporters' blogging under the Times brand that makes its stand on individuals' Facebook content particularly hypocritical.

[ps_martin]

Coop, I'd be willing to bet you can get all the "General Tso's chicken" you want from those New York Times reporters, you just have to know where to look. I'd try Moveon.org, DailyKos, and DemocraticUnderground.

[PLagasse]

Just curious: does CNET News require its writers to sign or follow a standards-of-conduct agreement, and if so, could you post the text for comparison?

[DuchessDriver]

Bottom line - Nothing connected to making money can ever be "impartial". Period. Journalists for big names like the Times need to get off their high horse and admit that they are 1 step above tabloids these days.

[apisano]

The NYT is worried about its writers political views? The paper is already a liberal - left wing slanted periodical that regular puts its editorials on the front page. What do they think, they will loose credibility is someone discovers their "journalists" are nothing more than sounding boards for the liberal agenda. Please, tell us something we don't already know.
This paper is dieing a quick death and it can't come fast enough.

[Pishkado]

Someone who doesn't know the difference between "lose" and "loose" loses a lot of credibility right there.

[skillingssucks]

....as does one that also thinks "dieing" is a word.

[Penguinisto]

This is kind of funny... most folks already know the NYT leans leftwards. It's not it would be a surprise or anything. OTOH, it's nice to see that they at least have some standards...

On a side note, this is standard practice for many professional folks. I once dished out online opinions on all things CG/3D when I was just a CG hobbyist. When I went to work for a CG/3D company, I stopped all of it cold. Why? Because I didn't want people conflating what I wrote with what the company thought.

Also, one's opinions are obviously going to be biased by the folks you draw your paycheck from, since a part of your work is in that company. You can see it here in the talkbacks... folks that, say, work for Microsoft will naturally defend it as much as they can, even when it doesn't make sense to. I chose MSFT in this case because there is a guy who makes his living from MSFT and posts here a lot - and the bias shows, big-time. It happens. I'm sure it happens with other companies as well.

[rimesparse]

Rich and Krist are op-ed columnists, not reporters. Using them as examples in this story makes absolutely no sense. As a NYT fanboy, you must have realized this so I'm confused why you would've included them.

[SoCalif]

Wow, short memories on the Internet. To critics in this comments string, good luck monetizing your well-respected blogs, paying your mortgages and providing health insurance for your families after you set up your bureaus in Karachi to cover the Afghanistan conflict.

The "left / liberal" NYT reported most -- if not all of the spin -- from the White House (Republican) on WMDs and Iraq. Elected officials read the press, including (gasp) the NYT. Somehow, Congress (the controlled by a Republican majority) authorized war.

Join that conversation.

[Dr_Zinj]

Our elected federal representatives are prohibited by the Constitution from censoring our political commentary.

So anything Congress has ever done, or has their fingers in is fair game for all us citizens.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say the President, or the Judical branch can't impose censorship. And it doesn't prevent censorship by state or local government, nor that of businesses.

What the NYT is saying is that anything journalists say publicly can and will be used in determination of employment if it can be attributed to them. Same thing a huge number of companies say to their employees world-wide. This is THE primary justification for anonymous or pseudonymous posting on the internet.

Some things need to be said that companies or governments don't want known. When they can threaten the livelihoods, lives, and families of people for blowing the whistle, or proposing change, their MUST be a means of letting them speak out effectively and relatively safely.

[AnneEasterling]

Here is the most important clause in the quote: "...in accordance with the Ethical Journalism admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your or The Times's political impartiality in reporting the news." As a former reporter, I am so frustrated by opinionated reporting that I have rarely read or view news for the past five years or so. But I also think that ethical concerns relates to any employee. Whatever I say or do reflects on my employer. That doesn't mean that I can't express my political opinions; I just need to do it in a respectful way.

[balonga]

I think you are being too naive about Times intention. The ultimate interest behind the memos is their journalist do no write for free in blogs and networks. If you can read news and/or thoughts from H or B worker of Times elsewhere why would you ever go to Times (digital or paper) to find that staff. As simple as that, although probably fear to any definition that could rest them audience inhabits Times as well as many corporation and ... politicians.

coop - sorry but it seems you're missing the point. you've never read a passionate story in the Times? all they are saying is "be careful" because what is written by journalists in blogs, facebook and twitter are construed by others as part of that which makes up the integrity of the Times and its journalists, and to some degree one might believe these extensions actually become part of the fabric of the Times. lets be real, we out here like to judge, especially out of context, and we know these things all too true. the fact they understand all this this but allow it, is great. seems to me they do, in fact, get it.

[GraysonBuzz]

"in accordance with the Ethical Journalism admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your or The Times's political impartiality in reporting the news."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That is hysterical! The New York Times, wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, impartial????? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Don't worry Charlie. There is nothing that a Times reporter can say or do on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or Digg that will change the perception that the Times is little more than a left-wing liberal mouhtpiece for the Democrats. "Mr. Obama wants to do a gues column? Sure! Love it!" "Mr. McCain wants to do a guest column? No...cannot do that." http://bit.ly/158jh