Yes, the rumours are true. The journalism of the 'Internets' has plonked down its bags, claimed your toothbrush and is now helping itself to your banana muffins on the bench. Online journalism has moved in, with no intention of leaving anytime soon.
Some are engrossed, some are displeased (and then some don't even know who Murdoch is, so we're not going to count them right now). I find myself to be mellow in the middle. As a reader, I enjoy the conversations enabled by online journalism, even if every so often reading someone's point-of-view is akin to lemon-sucking.
As I mused about last week, social media facilitates this conversation. While discussion is relatively consequence-free for readers, is there a double standard for journalists??
Take a look at the tweet below. Yes, it's in the harsher realm of the twittersphere, but admittedly, still classifies as communication between reader and writer.
SMH's (now ex) journalist Mike Carlton wrote a sensitive column on the Gaza-Israel conflict last week drawing much debate and criticism as being anti-semitic. It was bitter and readers and writer were posting slurs. You're likely aware Carlton's tweets eventually catalysed his suspension, then resignation. His tweets were "a HR issue, and his inappropriate dealings with some of the readers" according to SMH's editor-in-chief.
It's difficult to imagine the readers suffering similar consequences though...
If one user tweets profanities, the journalist might tweet profanities back. Fair or not?
Journalists are thrust into social media to communicate, yet navigating it all is still a treacherous path. The norm is undefined. Define it yourself, it seems. As Carlton demonstrates, doing so has caused many slips and falls along the way.
What are your thoughts? Should journalists be free to use social media how they want, or should regulation and consequence should to maintain a 'good image' for the company?
No comments:
Post a Comment