17 Comments

Summary:

While some mainstream media outlets are trying to take advantage of social tools to engage with their readers, others still seem stuck in the Dark Ages. The latest example of a misguided policy comes from E.W. Scripps, which owns a chain of newspapers and TV affiliates.

Mainstream media entities of all kinds continue to come out with policies that show they still don’t really understand how social media works, or how to use it effectively. The latest example comes from E.W. Scripps, a media conglomerate that owns a chain of newspapers and TV affiliates. Among other things, the chain’s new policy threatens its employees with termination if they use their blogs, Twitter or Facebook accounts improperly, and tries to draw a hard line between “personal” and “professional” usage — something that is not only difficult to do, but is arguably misguided. While some media outlets are trying to take advantage of social tools to really engage with their readers, others still seem stuck in the Dark Ages.

The Scripps policy starts out by saying that the company — which also owns the Scripps-Howard newswire service and the United Features comic-strip distribution syndicate — recognizes “the crucial role social media plays in providing local news and information to our readers, viewers and business partners” and that the chain’s papers and TV stations “have embraced the Internet and social media sites as essential elements of our future.” But after these motherhood statements, the policy quickly goes downhill, not unlike some other social-media policies we’ve written about in the past.

Broadcast, not a conversation

For one thing, the Scripps policy says the chain continues to “embrace new technologies to distribute our content and market our advertisers” — in other words, a one-way, broadcast-oriented approach, rather than using new tools as a way to talk with readers or viewers, instead of just at them. The policy also states:

  • The primary purpose of a personal account “is for employees to connect with friends or others with similar interests that aren’t work related.”
  • A personal account “should focus on your personal life.”
  • Scripps content created for work purposes “may be posted on a personal account before it is published or broadcast only with permission of a supervisor.”
  • If staff post “work product” on a personal social-media account “remember that Scripps owns the rights to that work product.”

Personal is better

It’s not surprising Scripps would want to draw a hard-and-fast line between the personal and the professional — lots of companies try to do this. But the whole point of social media is that it is (to some extent at least) personal, whether managers like it or not; that’s why it is so powerful. We identify with and are drawn to people like New York Times reporter Brian Stelter when they use social media because they give us insight into their personal experience. Should Stelter have avoided talking about how he forgot to bring proper clothes when he went to report on the recent Missouri tornado, and how his mother chewed him out for it? No. It made his account more entertaining.

Trying to make a writer or journalist’s use of social media less personal and more “professional” is not only misguided, but actually makes it less likely that any social-media usage will be effective or useful. Should you avoid excessive over-sharing and intensely personal opinions? Sure. You should be the best possible version of yourself, as I’ve argued before. But to make it less personal it to make it inherently less worth doing. And media outlets should be thinking about how to take advantage of the fact that everyone is becoming a brand now, instead of trying to stamp that out somehow.

While Scripps seems determined to try to assert as much control as possible over everything its writers do on the web or through social tools, other media outlets are experimenting with reaching out to their readers in all kinds of ways, and having some success doing so. The New York Times, for example, has been making more use of Twitter to engage with readers — and writers like Stelter have been showing how to use it and Tumblr as reporting tools as well. The newspaper also recently created an online debate (part of its ongoing “Room for Debate” series) based on ideas suggested by one of the paper’s readers.

Some other mainstream media outlets have gone even farther in trying to get their readers involved and engaged through social tools: the Register-Citizen in Torrington, Conn. has started inviting readers into its daily story meetings, by setting up a live discussion on its site that anyone can participate in (using CoverItLive software from Demand Media). As the newspaper’s editors described it:

Readers will be encouraged to comment on what aspects of a story to pursue, whom reporters should talk to about it and the larger context that should be considered in writing about the topic. It will also serve as an opportunity for readers to suggest other story topics the newspaper should pursue.

This move by the Register-Citizen is only the latest move by the paper to connect with its community: the newspaper was also one of the first to create a physical “open newsroom” as well as an online one, allowing readers and anyone in the town to come in and talk to the staff, sit in on daily story meetings and even have a cup of coffee and use the free wireless network. The Torrington paper is one of the flagships of the Journal-Register Co., where CEO John Paton has taken an aggressively “digital first” approach to turning the formerly bankrupt newspaper publisher around, with some success.

And the Register-Citizen isn’t the only one pursuing the “open newsroom” idea: A Swedish newspaper is also holding daily story meetings online with CoverItLive, asking readers for suggestions and input on what it is covering. The paper’s editor told a conference recently that not only have readers shown a huge interest in getting involved in this way, but advertisers are also interested because of the increased engagement that the paper has been able to show. “Get readers involved with your brand, engage them with their hearts and minds and the money will follow,” the editor said.

Smart advice — but chains like Scripps are going to have to change the way they think about social media before they get any of those benefits.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Hans Gerwitz and jphilipg

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Yet another post about how the old media just doesn’t get it.

    That meme got really tiresome after about the five millionth blog post I saw about it. Instead of yet another post bashing the old media, how about more posts where the old media get it right? Of course, it might take some actual *work* to find such examples; whereas bashing the old media is just too easy.

    But then I forget, the new media doesn’t really involve any actual investigative journalism — just throw some crap on your wall and see what sticks . . .

    1. Did you actually read the post, or did you just comment based on the headline? Because the post has several examples of “old media” doing it right.

      1. @Matthew: yes I read it, which is why I said *more* examples.

        I know you included some. What gets tiresome is reading post after post of how old media get it wrong. WE GET THAT ALREADY. It’s too easy to cite the bad examples, harder to cite the good.

        If you disagree, the floor is yours . . .

        1. I agree it’s harder to cite the good examples — partly because there are so few of them. If you have some, I’d be interested in hearing about them.

      2. Fair enough — when I see some I’ll let you know.

    2. Because txpatriot is so knowledgeable about such things, he/she will be happy to provide many examples of old media getting it right in social media.

  2. It’s a fine line. And I’m not surprised that companies and organizations are trying to control it. Especially because it makes the person posting/blogging/tweeting much more credible, and engaged with their readers, and so it enhances/widens their audience. But, like you say in this article, it’s impossible to figure out how to separate the personal from the professional when it comes to social media.

  3. In the end its still about changing media outlets culture, mindset. And this usually takes few years

  4. How does everyone feel when a friend starts pimping out their employer’s content on social media “too much”? This frequently crosses several trust lines and can dilute the actual content. (post idea)

    1. No one should share anything they feel isn’t worthy of being read/viewed. In an ideal world, we all work someplace where we’re proud of the work being produced and so we’re naturally inclined to share it. There should be no conflict of interest here and everyone has to make those decisions for themselves. It’s pretty evident if someone starts recommending things in-authentically.

      1. Well said, Anna — thanks for the comment.

    2. I would add that anyone who thinks social media is solely for “pimping” their content intrinsically doesn’t understand it and that includes journalists.

  5. Scripps is the same company filled with dolts who couldn’t figure out how to keep a Pulitzer-winning, historically significant, vibrant, connected, vigorous Denver newspaper alive. Rather than trying new ideas, which the staff of the Rocky Mountain News clearly was embracing, the corporate suits simply gave up.

  6. Interesting post – I would’ve liked to hear some quotes from people at Scripps responding to assertions of their out-of-date and uptight social media understanding. Although I wouldn’t expect their PR to respond readily..

    In a related extension, I applied to the E.W. Scripps school to earn my master’s in journalism. I was accepted but decided to go to Newhouse because the more I learned about Scripps, the more I sensed an uptight, overly theoretical approach to journalism in the academic program, which scared me off. Journalism should be hands-on and conversational, as Ingram says. Or at least, that’s where the market seems to be going.

  7. Your story tells us that social media takes at least 3 bands on the digital literacy target: content, story, and community. You also make it plain: personal=>social value unless it becomes excessive or obstreperous, and professional=>economic value unless it becomes oppressive or disingenuous. Thanks, also, for bringing what may reasonably be termed “mass personalization” (every one’s a brand now) forward: similar to “mass customization,” integrating the demand-supply content networks to optimize relationships (and thus P2P-RM) becomes key to developing both stories and the hyper-extended media enterprise.

  8. Hi Mathew,
    Great post. The examples of old media getting it right were inspiring and instructive. I also found the exmaples of old media getting it wrong helpful. For some reason, your column really clicked for me. I’ve read a lot about glitches in the transition to social media, but your piece really helped me understand the basic problem better.

    As for Scripps, it’s also the company that, as owner-stewards of United Press International, looked at the global news service that had been competing head-to-head with AP since 1907 and decided to dismantle it for maximum profit, selling off the pieces one by one. It’s now barely a shadow of its former self. I worked for UPI in the ’80s, and the process was sad to watch.

  9. “Still mostly doing it wrong” – according to whose rules?

Comments have been disabled for this post