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.
Exactly. As someone said earlier these organisations only have themselves to blame for their reliance on third party social media sites and absolute need to have a presence on them.
I guess though from a compliance and regulatory point of view it is easier for media companies to engage with the public on external sites than within forums or blog comments on their own site as used to be the norm. It is also a useful tool for viewers - I know I've certainly engaged with journalists covering certain issues in recent weeks and months in a way I'd have never been able to do without Twitter.
Ultimately though in using social media journalists just need to be professional, not censored.
The likes of Huw, Martine and Clive who were heavy on defending the BBC seemed to have stopped recently. It hasn't really died down either, the Defund the BBC campaign that was fuelled by the Maitlis incident is bigger than ever.
I'm sure you are all not stupid enough to realise that twitter does not represent the country. Twitter has two extremes of people, in terms of political views. Both of which, if the BBC says something that they dislike, they jump on it at lightning speed. When one minute they are bias to the left, and next bias to the right, does that not suggest that they are either a. unbiased b. only make mistakes every now and then as individuals. I highly doubt today's BBC News at Six and Ten team are sitting down having a laugh trying to smear Johnson or Starmer's performance at PMQs. If, Laura K was then to say "Johnson was a load of crap today as he always is" then that would be an incident relating to individuals.
I guess though from a compliance and regulatory point of view it is easier for media companies to engage with the public on external sites than within forums or blog comments on their own site as used to be the norm. It is also a useful tool for viewers - I know I've certainly engaged with journalists covering certain issues in recent weeks and months in a way I'd have never been able to do without Twitter.
Yes, that's a good point - it allows them to outsource that aspect without paying for it (unless you fork out for professional social media monitoring, but that's a different aspect altogether).
My own view, for what it's worth, is that for the mental health of their consumers, media outlets should pull back from Twitter to a certain extent - it's irresponsible to actively encourage people to use a platform that's notorious for hate speech and abuse and refuses to do anything to address it. During lockdown I was listening Tom Robinson on 6 Music inviting people to send in questions via Twitter, which seemed like a naive throwback to a decade ago when social media was a quieter place - it's a horror show now and media outlets should sup with a long spoon.
It's a tool, but it's not the be-all and end-all that it's become for many in the business.
As picked up on by others I can't help feeling that whilst journalists (not just BBC) are engaging with the public by using twitter they are also supporting a third-party company, at times potentially undermining their own company's business model. For instance if the journalist is reporting on a news item on twitter then why would the user bother going onto the newspaper or broadcaster's website to view the story when they've read the bulk on it on twitter via the journalist's tweet(s).
I think for breaking news if the journalist is live at the scene then using twitter may be justified as the quickest way to relay what is happening. However when it comes to news articles then they should be opting to either post a link to web page without any personal comment, or retweet something posted by their employer's official twitter feed (e.g. posted by @BBCNews). This is especially important when the subject matter relates to politics, where their posts could be seen as bias either for or against a person/party/government etc..
However when it comes to news articles then they should be opting to either post a link to web page without any personal comment, or retweet something posted by their employer's official twitter feed (e.g. posted by @BBCNews). This is especially important when the subject matter relates to politics, where their posts could be seen as bias either for or against a person/party/government etc..
I 100% agree. It feels to me at times, the journalist is almost showing off to their peers, rather than providing the content for the good of their employer. 'Scoops' etc should be funnelled via the broadcaster's 'corporate' Twitter feed.
As picked up on by others I can't help feeling that whilst journalists (not just BBC) are engaging with the public by using twitter they are also supporting a third-party company, at times potentially undermining their own company's business model. For instance if the journalist is reporting on a news item on twitter then why would the user bother going onto the newspaper or broadcaster's website to view the story when they've read the bulk on it on twitter via the journalist's tweet(s).
A comment piece in the Irish edition of The Times ( https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-newspapers-are-destroying-themselves-on-twitter-9fc8dt0x3 - paywall) made a similar point - when journalists were falling over themselves to tweet #buyapaper, they were giving away so much of their own content on Twitter that buying a paper was actually a bit pointless. (The Irish edition of The Times closed last year and is now online-only.)
I think for breaking news if the journalist is live at the scene then using twitter may be justified as the quickest way to relay what is happening. However when it comes to news articles then they should be opting to either post a link to web page without any personal comment, or retweet something posted by their employer's official twitter feed (e.g. posted by @BBCNews). This is especially important when the subject matter relates to politics, where their posts could be seen as bias either for or against a person/party/government etc..
Trouble is, if you're, say, a high-profile political editor, your bosses expect you to knock out analysis on Twitter. Say you're doing this on a story about a political party with a problem with racism, and the supporters of that party are adamant that there is no problem with racism. You're on a hiding to nothing analysing that story on a platform where people form an opinion in just a few seconds and take just a few more seconds to fire off an ill-considered response.
They both obviously thought it was more hassle than it's worth.
I do wonder why they bother
Pretty much all the responses whenever Laura Kuenssberg tweets are negative, either having a go at her personally, or at the BBC or just people saying nobody cares.
Despite how many know Twitter is just full of extreme opinions these days the media including the BBC still hold great store in Twitter and use people’s posts in many online articles
The Julian Lewis story has shown the benefits of Twitter tonight - a way for journalists from across the media to quickly report a story and something you don't really see on screen, corroborate reports from rivals and expand further on them.