11 Comments

Summary:

The BBC has issued a new directive to its journalists telling them they must post updates to editors first rather than breaking news on Twitter, another example of how traditional media entities are struggling with their relationship to Twitter in an era of real-time, distributed news.

3505349701_af34ebecdd_z

Just a day after Sky News told its journalists they should not post any kind of breaking news to Twitter — and also blocked them from retweeting anyone but an official Sky News account — the BBC has released a new version of its social-media policies that also requires reporters to file updates to news editors first rather than posting breaking news to Twitter. The BBC’s social-media editor says the policy isn’t as draconian as some critics are portraying it, but the emphasis on protecting the British national broadcaster’s existing news structure is just another example of how traditional media entities are struggling with their relationship to Twitter in an era of real-time, distributed news.

In a blog post at the BBC site, social-media editor Chris Hamilton says that the broadcaster recognizes the value of Twitter as a platform for distributing its content, a way of gathering news and a way of engaging with readers. But for now, he says, the national news network wants breaking news to be processed through its existing news system so that it reaches BBC viewers and readers through the broadcaster’s channels and sites rather than on Twitter. As Hamilton put it in his post:

[O]ur first priority remains ensuring that important information reaches BBC colleagues, and thus all our audiences, as quickly as possible – and certainly not after it reaches Twitter.

Hamilton and other BBC staffers, including BBC World Affairs producer Stuart Hughes, pointed out both on Twitter and in comments on blog posts about the move that the BBC has an internal publishing system called Quickfire that allows journalists for the news service to put content into its system via SMS or email — so that they could theoretically post something for editors and to Twitter at the same time. In other words, Hamilton said, the service is “talking about a difference of a few seconds” between content making it into the official system and being posted to Twitter.

Serve the reader, wherever they may be

That said, however, the focus of the policy update is clearly to put the emphasis on publishing news to the BBC’s existing properties first, rather than on Twitter. Why? Hamilton isn’t quite as clear on that as he is on the specifics of the rules. It could be that the news outlet wants to have news checked first by an editor, so that the BBC avoids the kind of fiasco that occurred when CBS Sports and other media entities repeated the erroneous news that Penn State coach Joe Paterno had died. Or it could be that the BBC is worried about competitive issues, as the Associated Press seems to be in promoting its own “don’t break news on Twitter” rules.

Financial Times columnist John Gapper, who defended the move in a conversation with me on Twitter, said it makes sense for news outlets like the BBC to try and preserve some news for their existing readers and viewers, and added that it doesn’t make sense to employ a journalist whose “loyalty is to his Twitter feed” instead of his organization. In other words, news should be saved for the company in an attempt to maintain its brand (and revenue), rather than being given away on Twitter for nothing.

To me, this puts the emphasis in the wrong place. I think news outlets that encourage their employees to break news on Twitter — such as Reuters, where social-media editor Anthony De Rosa wrote a critical post about the Sky News move — see the value of having journalists who become sources of news for their followers, many of whom may already be readers of their journalism, and others of whom may be potential readers. Whether that news comes after it has hit the wire, or after it has appeared on a BBC website, or whether it is even a retweet of someone close to the events, doesn’t really matter to most people.

One of the realities of a world in which distribution of content — including news — has been fundamentally democratized is that the value of a “scoop” or breaking news update is declining rapidly. The half-life of that kind of news is so short, and it becomes a commodity so quickly, that there is little value in trying to protect it for very long (although some are trying hard to do so via the courts). Look at it this way: if a single tweet from someone on your staff gives away enough of the value of your story that you have to forbid it, you have a lot bigger problems than just breaking news on Twitter.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Lili Viera De Carvalho and Rosaura Ochoa

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

  1. It’s right to robustly challenge their announcements, but I think we need to give the BBC some slack here – as an established media organisation they have made quite some efforts to benefit from integrating Twitter into their model. Their sports ticker updates, for example, typically include #hashtags for ‘viewers’ to interact and follow the discussion on Twitter.

    1. I agree the BBC has been smart in many of the things it has done with Twitter and other social-media tools, Matthew — which is part of the reason I think I and others hold them to a higher standard. Thanks for the comment.

  2. Many legacy media don’t seem to come to grips with the communication shift that comes with social media. Journalists like Brian Stelter or Andy Carvin or Matthew Ingram – we think of them as their brands in their wown right first, and then of the news entities NPR, News York Times, GigaOm which they stand for. But at least, these three media entities don’t seem to have a problem with that shift, because of the value created from their reporters being an important part of the conversation and ultimately drawing more readers to the website.

    1. Don’t be so certain about some sort of apathy or ignorance in legacy media when it comes to social media. The issue is front and center for every traditional outlet. What we are seeing are the outcomes of their choices concerning how they use this new technology.

      1. At NPR at least, there’s no ignorance towards what I’m doing. They actively support it, as they do for other NPR staff comfortable using social media as part of their work.

    2. Thanks for pointing that out, Andy. NPR has definitely embraced that role, which is great.

  3. Matthew, do you think that the BBC made a calculated or a more “this is just the way it’s been done for 60 years” kind of decision in restricting the flow of information to Twitter? Either way it will be interesting to see wether this decision is part of a larger strategy.

    1. I think that the BBC, like a lot of other traditional media entities, probably has a number of camps inside it when it comes to Twitter and other social-media tools — some who see opportunity and others who see nothing but a threat or potential negative impact.

  4. Thanks for the considered post, and great linking. But just to clarify a few things…

    We’re not looking for “breaking news to be processed through [our] existing news system so that it reaches BBC viewers and readers through [our] channels and sites rather than on Twitter”.

    What we’re aiming for is breaking news to reach our often large audiences on a wide range of platforms – Twitter, other social networks, our own website, continuous TV and radio news channels, TV and radio bulletins and programmes across several networks – as quickly and efficiently as possible. Equally that we can deploy the resources we need to tell that story on some of those platforms – reporters, TV trucks – as quickly and efficiently as possible.

    Those are the drivers – not a desire to have news checked first by an editor before a journalist can tweet it, nor “competitive issues”.

    Key to this is the technology we have that allows our journalists to get text into the BBC newsroom system and to their own Twitter accounts at the same time.

    However, when the technology isn’t available, for whatever reason, telling the newsroom before sending a tweet is prioritised – *that’s* when we’re talking “a difference of a few seconds”.

    Like many other news organisations, we see the value of having journalists who become sources of news for their followers, and this guidance isn’t incompatible with that.

    Final point – this guidance (and in fact my own role) relates only to BBC News, not the BBC as a whole.

    Chris Hamilton
    Social Media Editor, BBC News

    1. Chris, I am curious about how you found this article. Are you using Social Media Monitoring technology or was this passed on to you by someone you know?

    2. Thanks for the comment, Chris, and for the clarifications — but if you want to reach your audience as quickly and efficiently as possible, then why not use Twitter to its full potential? If there aren’t any fact-checking or competitive issues as you say, then why hamstring your journalists by making them file to your internal system first?

Comments have been disabled for this post