Where traditional media meets social media: to engage, or not to engage?
There are, within my industry, at least two schools of thought regarding journalists and social media.
Some of my colleagues really want to maintain a personal place on a site such as Facebook — a no-sources-allowed page where they can communicate freely with friends and co-workers.
I can understand that point of view. But as readers of this blog already know, I've taken the opposite approach. I've decided to take a much more open approach, opening my social media sites pretty much to all comers.
This explains why my Facebook friends list is populated by — among others — my mother, my teen-age sons, one of my college roommates, dozens of past and current newsroom colleagues and at least a dozen elected officials.
I believe social media provides journalists with one more way to provide their content to readers. But I'm also learning that social media provides journalist with one more valuable way to interact with readers — and elected officials are people too.
The interaction, as I'm learning through my social media travels, is probably just as important as simply posting the links. Readers are looking to ask questions and engage with journalists — and Facebook and Twitter users take very seriously the "social" component of social media.
And I suspect it is the biggest hangup for many of my news colleagues. I can understand why some journalists are really reluctant to engage in an online conversation with readers — in a medium where every word has permanence, and where nuances can easily be misread.
The one advantage I have, as an opinion writer, is that I have a lot more freedom to express a point of view and analyze the issues. I'm writing opinion pieces anyway, so I'm fairly comfortable discussing opinions in a social media setting.
Obviously, all journalists are trying to learn their way through this new world. No easy answers. No time-honored "right" answers. I'm interested in what you think — so let me know here, or on my social media pages. Thanks.
Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials.
Become a follower. You can also get updates on Facebook's new Idaho Statesman
Opinion Page.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo- Kevin Richert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Well said
I completely agree with this. Even journalists who don't specialize in opinion like Kevin does still have a point of view. While keeping out of the fray on topics you directly cover or are likely to cover is usually a good idea - that doesn't mean that you can't have a point of view. There's a topic or two where I have a known stance - and I recuse myself from coverage in those areas.
More specifically, when it comes to social networking - it's important to be a part of the conversation. Even if you are just largely observing, the stream of discussion on places like Twitter and to some degree on Facebook are much like the opinion page of a newspaper. While I personally am more restrictive with my Facebook friend list - the doors on Twitter are wide open. I have at least one colleague that has two FB profiles - one public and one private, which I think attains a nice balance.
Journalists can't sit on the sidelines of social media anymore. It's much like those that sat on the sidelines of the Internet 10-15 years ago... it's an attempt to hold on to a past that isn't there any more.
Thanks for the comment.
As regular blog readers already know, I don't often agree with Don Day. So this is indeed an unusual moment.
Does this mean there's a winter storm watch for stretches of the underworld? I don't think so. I think we both — from our decidedly different vantage points — see an audience looking to interact with journalists in a new way. I think this makes for better-connected and better-informed journalists — and better and more vibrant journalism.
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
Time
I'm baffled how a professional person can keep up with their regular work load plus emails/texts, cell phone, blogging, and now social networking. My conclusion is they can't-- something tends to suffer.
Courtesy to people in your immediate vicinity is one thing that suffers-like the rudeness of taking a cell call while checking out at a retail store. Or texting while on a lunch date. Tweeting in bed???
I'm sure the standards of rudeness will continue to evolve as well.
***
Exposure.
It also baffles me why people are so willing to expose themselves in a social network.
Let's come up with another social term- "social leverage":
I know you know x person and I expect something based on you knowing that person. Or I know you know x person and I'll choose to avoid you based on that information. Or I know you know x person and I'll kiss your but to get in with you and hope for a connection to x. I'll use you. And it's ONLY based on my assumption about your list of 'friends' on FB.
Would you EVER stand in a big cocktail party and tell someone else all the people you know in the room?
"Oh yeah, I know 142 people here on a 1st name basis." And then proceed to point them out... and then repeat your conversations with those people over the last 30 days.
Let's remember these social sites were started by college students and teenagers. Mentality check?
It reminds me of the parent who says, "My best friend is my child." YIKES!
****
Information is valuable.
Social information creates "social leverage".
If more elected officials...
took the same point of view re: interacting with citizens. The downside of all this technology is its all-consuming nature. We could answer email, create blogs, and Twitter 24-7.
I am offended when elected officials refuse to respond to questions and surveys. How else are we supposed to know their viewpoints?
Perhaps the same is true of journalists? We need to have deeper discussions that go beyond editorial pages and journalists need to better understand their readers and their reactions to what they write.
Afraid, reluctance or
Afraid, reluctance or personal disdain by your fellow local journalist to engage the social media only hurts their journalism and creditability as the informed public sees they cannot communicate in the modern world.
Obviously, common sense dictates the confidentiality of a newsroom must remain intact. Well informed organizations are using social media to engage the public as a resource from spectators of news, to active participants.
The question, can modern journalist’s use modern communication tools and not get caught up in the status quo because they cannot relate to modern society and lack the influences on public opinion & discourse as they did in the past with a controlled media source. The people are asserting the power of immediate communication to ensure our society is about the people and the lives we live.
Social media participation requires a modern mindset, as it is evolutionary process, start small and build; the future is here embrace or step aside, good luck.
I have a few old personal forums favorites, a few blogs...
and whatever few things I merit to have value.
My dabbling is narrow and to the point. It takes too much time doing this routine already. I used to make nice cards with this thing.
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
PS 95% of what the kids like is being a pioneer doofus learner.
All of us did this 15 years ago.
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...