Examining the Social Media Policies of Some Highly-Regarded Companies

The BBC gave its staff a jarring ultimatum in early 2010: embrace social media — or leave.

While no other news organization was quite as dramatic in its encouragement of social media use, almost all newsrooms are wrestling with social media guidelines and how to implement them for the constantly changing media landscape. Let’s take a look at some of the latest thinking about the use of Facebook, Twitter, etc.

There have been several incidents over the last three years where journalists and non-journalists alike have gotten into hot water for what they've tweeted. In the wake of those incidents, Poynter.org’s Mallary Jean Tenore has written a new article that every journalist should read: What journalists need to know about libelous tweets.

Here's an excerpt:

“Statements on Twitter can form the basis of a defamation lawsuit just as much as any form of publication,” explained David Ardia, an assistant professor of law at the University of North Carolina. “It’s just sometimes with new technology, it takes a little longer for people to start to take what they read seriously enough — and more importantly for lawyers — to pay enough attention to start to bring lawsuits based on it.”

There are a lot of misconceptions about whether tweets are libelous. It’s easy to think, for instance, Twitter is ephemeral and libel laws wouldn’t apply. This is similar to what happened when blogs first came out, Ardia said. Many bloggers, he explained, thought they could post whatever they wanted without any legal ramifications. (We now know that’s far from true.)

There aren’t many “twibel cases” as they’re sometimes called, but Ardia said he expects more to arise as the number of Twitter users increases.

In July, the BBC issued updated guidelines looking at three types of social media activities (PDF). Here are some of the highlights:

1. Your own personal activity, done for your friends and contacts, but not under or in the name of BBC News

You are not discouraged from doing any of this, but as a BBC member of staff - and especially as someone who works in news - there are particular considerations to bear in mind. They can all be summarised as: "Don't do anything stupid."

Remember that even though you are acting in your own personal capacity, you are on show to your friends and anyone else who sees what you write, as a representative of the BBC. If you are editorial staff, it doesn't make much difference whether or not you identify yourself as someone who works for the BBC.

2. Activity for core news (e.g. breaking news), programmes or genres carried out officially in the name of BBC News

This can be a good thing to do, especially if you are going to engage better with your audience or even extend your reach.

The golden rule for our core news, programme or genre activity is that whatever is published — on Twitter, Facebook or anywhere else — must have a second pair of eyes prior to publication. A second check might well avoid you saying or linking to something unwise which could land you, or the BBC, in trouble. While there’s recognition that staffing levels can get in the way of this, especially small teams in overseas offices, every effort should nonetheless be made to ensure this practice is adhered to unless there are urgent live deadlines.

3. Activity of editors, presenters, correspondents or reporters carried out as part of official BBC News output

Currently, there are limited official individual BBC News accounts on Twitter (like Stephanie Flanders @BBCStephanie). There is a full list on the BBC News website.

The crucial thing to remember is that as they’re official BBC News output, all tweets need to be consistent with this, reflecting and focusing on areas relevant to the role or specialism, and avoiding personal interests or unrelated issues.

There is a particular compliance procedure for these accounts, which involves a senior editor or assistant editor being sent the tweets automatically after they go out.

The AP’s guidelines, which has also been recently updated, are worth noting (PDF), including these highlights:

• All AP journalists are encouraged to have accounts on social networking sites. These sites are now an integral part of everyday life for millions of people around the world. They have become an essential tool for AP reporters to gather news and share links to our published work.
• Employees should be mindful that any personal information they disclose about themselves or colleagues may be linked to the AP's name. That's true even if staffers restrict their pages to viewing only by friends. It’s not just like uttering a comment over a beer with your friends: It's all too easy for someone to copy material out of restricted pages and redirect it elsewhere for wider viewing. As multitudes of people have learned all too well, virtually nothing is truly private on the Internet.
• We recommend customizing your privacy settings on Facebook, which allows you to make choices about what you share and with whom.
• Everyone who works for AP must be mindful that opinions he or she expresses may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. AP employees must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements. This includes liking and following pages and groups that are associated with these causes or movements.
• It is acceptable to extend and accept Facebook friend requests from sources, but we should try to avoid situations that may jeopardize AP’s reputation by giving the appearance of bias. In particular, since friending and “liking” political candidates or causes may create a perception that AP staffers are truly their advocates, staffers should avoid this practice unless they have a true reporting reason for it. If we must friend or “like,” we should avoid interacting with newsmakers on their public pages — for instance, commenting on their posts.

One particular AP guideline, “Don’t break news that we haven’t published, no matter the format,” has been criticized. Veteran digital journalist Steve Buttry wrote: “Did no one involved with these guidelines read how essential Twitter was to Brian Stelter’s reporting of the Joplin tornado for the New York Times? AP writers should be free and encouraged to be similarly resourceful.”

While I can see Buttry’s point about using Twitter in creative ways, I can also see why AP would have such a guideline. It makes sense that a news organization would want, whenever possible, to have breaking news first broken on its own site (or branded Twitter account). But like everything else, this is a guideline, which, I presume means that in the right circumstances — and for the right reasons — it can be broken.

Post your comments below using your Facebook account or on Twitter @sree.

Every week, DNAinfo contributing editor Sree Sreenivasan, a Columbia journalism professor, shares his observations about the changing media landscape.