Social Media: A Journalist's Ultimatum

Thomas Garverick
cg701315@ohio.edu

When you make the decision to become a journalist, you relinquish the right to always speak your opinion. The key word there is always because in the last decade, social media has changed the way that journalists go about doing their job -- what they can and cannot say about certain topics.

News organizations like "The New York Post" claim to have the right to force you to take a neutral approach. Should  news organization have this type of control over journalists?

I thought this quote was extremely interesting from Dan Kennedy in the article called "In defense of Neutrality: Why News Organizations are Right to Crack Down on Social Media".

"If someone tells you that they have no opinion, even on serious issues, that they are totally objective and that they also never make a mistake, you would probably think they are either a liar or a sociopath. And yet that is what social media polices are asking people to believe."

When you put it like that, I think its crazy that some news organizations feel that way -- whether its for you to not take a personal stand at all or that you have to make a whole entire new policy that reflects their standards.

Sports and news have two different approaches to this -- in sports, its generally accepted for commentators to give their opinions, where as in news, a reporter would be scene biased.

I want to talk about a two cases involving sports and news, but with two different outcomes.

Tweeting Has led to Unemployment 

Colin Cowherd was fired at ESPN for a racially offending tweet,
but quickly found a home with FOX Sports.

Colin Cowherd was once one of the most, if not the most, prominent radio host on ESPN. That all changed with one tweet questioning the intelligence of Dominican Republic, who make-up a large portion of the Major League Baseball community. 

Yes, the tweet came off offensive, but Cowherd did have statistical data in front of him to backup his somewhat harsh clams that the country's economy and educational opportunities hurt them. 

Cowherd however, was fired just two days later. 

He had worked with the company for ESPN for 12 years. 

ESPN has a strong relationship with the MLB, who was not happy about his comment. So based off of one tweet, his organization chose a company over him after over a decade. 

Tweeting can be a slippery slope. 

Roles Reverse, but Different Outcome 

Everyone knows who LeBron James is and the kind of impact he's had as an athlete in the NBA, but off the court too. 

Laura Ingraham angered many African-American athletes for
attacking LeBron James about his comments on Donald Trump.

Laura Ingraham, a TV host for Fox News, didn't seem to care for James. She went on record saying that James should "shut up and dribble and refrain from talking about politics because she didn't need advice from someone getting paid $100 million to bounce a ball." 

So now a news reporter coming out and attacking an athlete. Fox News never punished her for her remarks on James -- if anything, it grew her brand. 

Ingraham to this day is still at Fox News. 

LeBron has since built a school for less fortunate kids in Akron. 

It's crazy to me that Cowherd, a 12-year veteran at ESPN could lose his job over one tweet, but Ingraham can go toe-to-toe with an athlete and get nothing. 

Again, it all goes back to what these organizations believe in. ESPN supports the MLB, and Fox News chose to support their employees attacking of athletes. 

Social media puts organizations in situations that questions them to their core.