Ironic indeed. But, if the management is concerned about it, why instruct/promote/suggest that presenters and correspondents give out their Twitter handles during LIVE broadcasts, and encourage us to get in touch. Seems a bit of a mixed message:
Notwithstanding the irony of posting this on Twitter, but... BBC's head of editorial standards says some BBC journalists are addicted to Twitter, obsessed with going viral, and that some have been disciplined for "egregious" breaches of editorial standardshttps://t.co/58OVXhBDS5
The BBC should make it a requirement that staff must not post to social media any content that is political, staff may post links to BBC articles regarding politics etc, but they must not comment on it, unless the author is the tweeter. And even then it should only be to comment that "I interviewed such and such" etc. At the moment, if they are telling presenters to give out their twitter handles while at the same time having concerns about it all, seems very much the case that the BBC's left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
This is the only way to prevent issues and accusations of bias.
Anything you say on social media can be taken in many ways, even if you have good intentions it is just a minefield especially in the ever increasing world of political correctness. On a personal note, social media has never interested me, and I fail to see why people are obsessed over it. Get rid of it, you will be far happier. They are just echo chambers at the end of the day. Why do reporters need social media accounts? it is all of the main site for people to see. Normal people are sure to tweet about articles anyway.
Last edited by another_beauty on 15 July 2020 11:24am - 3 times in total
If you look at live blogs on BBC News Online during major political stories (which are frankly lacking these days compared to other news websites), a lot of the content is made up of embedded tweets from BBC political journalists, even video clips from BBC programmes.
It's obviously an easy way to quickly harvest content from multiple journalists and sources but I've often wondered why the BBC allows its journalists to prioritise a third party platform rather than its own website.
Kath Viner of The Guardian did have a point on a recent edition of the The Media Show on Radio 4 that much of the time journalists on Twitter are simply talking to each other.
As a minimum, the BBC should insist on the same standards of writing for its own platforms being adhered to on Twitter. As I've said before, Laura Kuenssberg could easily have avoided several Twitter storms through better drafting of tweets and not using Twitter as a notepad for off the record sources.
It is clear they are encouraged to communicate with viewers through Twitter, and if you think BBC journalists not posting on Twitter would remove accusations of bias then you're very much mistaken.
Like it or not that is the world we're in and is as important now to the BBC, if not more so, as the news channel and website.
I'm a regular user of twitter and see how some BBC staff use it.
During the 2019 general election, without naming names, senior presenters/editors/correspondents conduct was edging towards an indirect bias. What I mean by that is, instead of retweeting when who they personally dislike has misbehaved or something, they only retweet/comment on the actions of other leaders.
Since then, I am lead to believe they have taken a personal decision to calm down, or, had a bit of a bollocking. Half of the presenters hardly tweet anymore.
There's a certain senior presenter who goes too far on social media, however, at 2pm today we might find out if it was within reason as they may no longer have a job.
There's an argument between whether it matters what you do on social media. I remember watching an interview where Clive Myrie said "if I went on twitter and called Jeremy Corbyn a knobhead or Theresa May something or other, viewers are going to say "isn't that the one who said he hates x or y" whilst presenting."
At the same time, I find twitter very very useful for finding out what was said by politicians. For example, if Reeta Chakribati is presenting and the live feed is on the Commons or a Press Conference, she always commentates on it on twitter. Same with some of the political correspondents as well.
In my opinion, the BBCs issue with bias has come from twitter. On screen, 99% of the time, their reporting is outstanding and unbiased. But twitter plays a part. Laura K's tweets that were written whilst she was in a rush need to stop as it always causes some sort of accidental misinformation.
Quoting above:
There's a certain senior presenter who goes too far on social media, however, at 2pm today we might find out if it was within reason as they may no longer have a job.
Quoting above:
There's a certain senior presenter who goes too far on social media, however, at 2pm today we might find out if it was within reason as they may no longer have a job.
Blimey! 😳
Only of course, relating to the cuts thread where apparently there will be an announcement on job cuts. And, from what twitter tells me, might involve programme(s) this individual works on.
It is clear they are encouraged to communicate with viewers through Twitter, and if you think BBC journalists not posting on Twitter would remove accusations of bias then you're very much mistaken.
Like it or not that is the world we're in and is as important now to the BBC, if not more so, as the news channel and website.
I didn't say they can't post on twitter, I said they should not post political comments. If they want to use Twitter to get people to submit questions etc, that is very different to a presenter giving his or her opinion on politics. The BBC would need to issue clear guidelines to staff in this case. I am saying the BBC should tell staff not to post political content unless it is part of their job, ie a link to an article they have produced. The BBC is publicly funded, so "everyone" is paying. If you work for a publicly funded company, you must accept that as part of the job, you have to keep stum unless you are employed to report on politics. Otherwise their comment is always going to upset someone who is providing part of the dosh. It just feeds the hand of the people that want the BBC gone.
What is politics though? I'd expect any BBC journalist to go on to Twitter and defend the BBC, but then that might be seen as political.
As we've seen in recent years most accusations of bias at the BBC are complete nonsense - they tent to come from both sides of the spectrum when convenient.
I'd expect any BBC journalist to go on to Twitter and defend the BBC
I wouldn't ! It's up the the BBC corporate affairs dept to defend the BBC on Twitter and within the media, not any individual employee, (unless they are from BBC's corporate affairs dept)
It's not a BBC specific thing, it should apply any company or organisation.
Journalism has a big Twitter problem, not just BBC journalism. Twitter has grown fat off the back of journalists' unpaid labour - apparently Twitter's Robert Peston has a side-hustle on ITV - and gives nothing back to an industry whose business model is shot to pieces. That's the big Twitter problem, not the BBC navel-gazing about impartiality again.
It'd be easy to take BBC bosses seriously when they pontificate about journalists using Twitter so much if those same BBC bosses didn't insist on pointlessly embedding tweets in online stories or try to turn their big onscreen names into Twitter personalities. The whole industry needs to rethink its relationship with Twitter, and the BBC would be good place to start.