In many cases, social media has become a great tool for our society today. While the main purpose of it is to bring us together, it can also provide up-to-the-minute news information (some of which could save lives) right at our fingertips. However, while there is a lot of good that can come out of social media, a lot of bad can happen as well. Loads of misinformation, hurtful speech, and opinion-based news can show up.
Recently, both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal updated their social media guidelines. These guidelines were implemented to prevent the journalists from posting opinionated (mainly political) posts on social media. There were many mixed opinions on this issue, with some journalists having concerns about what constitutes as partisan vs fact. This was a large issue brought up by Matthew Ingram, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review. "And what qualifies as partisan?...These policies are likely to further smother voices that need to be heard", said Ingram.
On the contrary, some journalists believe this is a wonderful idea. Dan Kennedy, a reporter for Boston's public broadcasting stations WGBH, stated "Providing tough, fair-minded coverage is a discipline that is undermined once you disclose your own biases. It's not just that your audience's views of your work changes; it's that you change too. No longer are you a reporter who can be counted on to provide accurate, neutral coverage."
In today's America, where everything is so polarized, getting correct information out to the public is key. After all, a news and information journalist's number one priority is the public. Because this is the case, a journalist's political views should not get in the way of their reporting. Just as Kennedy said, how is a journalist supposed to gain credibility when he/she interjects his/her own political opinions into their professional accounts? In an age where only 41% of Americans trust the media as a whole, it is crucial that journalists be as professional, and objective as possible.
It's off putting to people who may hold different opinions when reporters refer to the president as "old and not all there" or "an evil orange man". This will make democrats (in the case of the "old and not all there" quote) lose trust in the reporter who posted that, and republicans (in the case of the "evil orange man" quote) lose trust in that reporter. This, in the end will likely cause more division between the two sides.
News organizations, by setting guidelines for reporters, I believe are doing a good job of gaining their trust back. By keeping all subjectivity out of their reporters' public images, and backing up their stories with robust statistics from multiple sources, more people (both left and right) will eventually find the truth. As long as top organizations continue to re-evaluate their standards for the better, trust will eventually be found in journalists and news organizations as a whole again.
No comments:
Post a Comment