Social media guidelines: Hiding or protecting journalists?

Olivia Roman

lr330519@ohio.edu

Objectivity in journalism states that reporters are factual, fair, and nonpartisan in their reports. Yet, journalists are subjected to leaving out their own opinions in all material they may cover, allowing the hardcore facts to speak for themself.

Should the principle of objectivity stay or go? 

According to Time, objectivity in journalism started in the 1920s, when the media formed a professional ideal. Some believed that reporting was not providing context for analysis to an audience. Elmer Davis, a famous radio commentator, expressed, "objectivity lets the public be imposed on by the charlatan with the most brazen front" in 1953.

Others stick to the general idea that the audience can make their stance and interpretation of a story with the facts provided. If the journalist is partisan, the audience may doubt their truth and intentions in other reports to come. 

Source: Uncommon Ground

Social media guidelines: Acceptable? 

In 2017, The New York Times announced a renewed set of guidelines for their journalists' social media platforms. These platforms include but are not limited to: Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook. That was in response to the increase in journalists using social media platforms on personal accounts to state their biased opinions. 

The Wall Street Journal soon followed with an update to its policies with social media, as well. Both publications' defense statements alluded to the idea of a member representing the whole newsroom/company when they post opinions on their private accounts outside of the workplace. The action of one can ruin the reputation of a whole organization, and that is what they are desperately trying to prevent.

The New York Times updated social media policies requiring journalists not to post content that expresses partisanship on social media. Also, journalists are not allowed to not take sides on issues The Times wants to cover objectively, discourage making customer service complaints public, avoid joining private groups, treat others with respect, and refrain from engaging in responding to criticism. 

Hiding or protecting?

The truth is that, as an audience, everybody will have a different view in whether they should be reading opinions or basic facts of a news story from a journalist. So if we kicked objectivity to the curb, the journalist might be changing the minds of their audience.

They may no longer be viewed as the journalist who is accurate and neutral but as the journalist who expressed that one opinion that went viral. Now, that's all the audience may think about when they see their future work. Objectivity can be seen as protecting a journalist from ruining their careers and esteemed reputations in this demanding industry. 

However, there's only so much hiding you can ask of a journalist. It can be evident to an average human being that journalists have opinions in their private life, no matter what. So, when they go to work and pretend like they don't, it may create less trust with the viewers. 

Mathew Ingram from Columbia Journalism Review, states, "if someone tells you that they have no opinion, even on serious issues, that they are objective and that they also never make a mistake, you would probably think they are either a liar or a sociopath." 

At the height of it all, the truth will always prevail and shed light. The question is, how much longer can our audience fight to decipher what is true? How much more can journalists take when this job impedes their personal lives and takes away their right of freedom to express opinions?