Source: http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/5469/coxforkum060213overboard3cl.jpg
Earlier this week, I ran into the following situation:
The challenge of being a journalist is knowing how far to follow a story. As a citizen-journalist a.k.a. blogger, how does one know when to publish a story that others would prefer to keep quiet?
For example, I found out about a company that had been purchased by another larger one. The small company’s product is used in many school districts. At the request of the small company–whom has served with distinction many customers–I removed a blog entry outlining the purchase…the company’s owner promised an exclusive and yet, also called the customers to let them know of the buy-out.
Should I have left the blog entry up or taken it down? What guidelines/suggestions do you have? Somehow I feel that a proper journalist would have published the story no matter what the personal cost, while another would have pulled the story and waited for the promised exclusive.
I find myself caught between the lure of making the story known to all (great interest) and honoring a request by a company that has served well, including myself and my group.
Although I left these musings and questions on this blog entry as a comment (“Top 10 Tips for Journalists Who Blog“)–note that an update posted at the bottom is one response–I realized that the public’s right to know was more important than two businesses crafting a press release. When the information was shared with me, it was not said, “This is confidential, do not share it.” No such restriction was put. However, I quickly became aware of the fact that information was indeed being shared, but the goal was to keep it contained between one vendor and the customers, an act of courtesy.
I suppose what pushed me over the edge, to set aside personal considerations were two quotes:
Gone are the days of “command-and-control” style messaging and, frankly, good riddance…The timeless value of discretion is made more valuable — and often more tricky — when the new nature of media requires communicators to be rapidly and ubiquitously responsive.
If the vendors did not consider that information would be shared, and shared quickly online in new environments, then that is a lesson they need to learn. New companies need to be transparent, communicate using new media tools (e.g. blogs, twitter). In fact, I like this quote from DigiDave…it reminds us all that today, when all of us have access to social media, trying to keep a secret pending crafting of a press release is, well, naive.
“It is cheaper and easier to just do something then it is to sit around and debate about whether or not to do something.”
Source: DigiDave
The second quote is this one, and I think it makes the point eloquently:
Before long, it won’t simply be the case that you shouldn’t simply write or say anything you wouldn’t want discovered in the New York Times or online. Instead, in an effort to attain the kind of transparency that is obligatory in a new era of citizen journalism, a new standard will emerge whereby organizations will be compelled not to do anything they wouldn’t want discovered. The organizations that will be truly successful in this environment are those that have integrated transparency as part of their organizational culture and not just their communications strategy.
Here is what the two companies SHOULD have done simultaneously at the same time they picked up the phone to call their customers:
- Blogged the partnership formation, explaining in detail what they could as it happened. Maybe even included a podcast of the interview with one or both CEOs (or someone).
- Sent a tweet simultaneously–with a link to their blog entry. Make twitter a way to connect with the community of users and primary communications tool (instead of the telephone).
- Included the top 5 questions anyone is going to ask (I mean, how repetitive is it going to get for someone to repeat the same 5 pieces of information to X number of customers?) in their blog entry or podcast.
- Posted reactions from customers
- Practice lethal generosity by discussing how the two products will mesh and what those benefits will be…which is described as:
“lethal generosity,” the concept that the most generous members of any social media company are the most credible and influential…the company whose representative posts the most tips, links, advice, case studies, best practices that followers find useful will always rises to the top, not just in influence but also in search results. The more outbound links you post, the more inbound links you are likely to receive (Read Global Neighborhoods blog entry)
What else would you suggest a company do when announcing change to customers?
Update 01/11/2009: A response from Gina to my initial question posed at the beginning of this entry:
Miguel,
You highlight an important issue. Basic journalism philosophy says you should have published, regardless of what the company requested. (Although I’ve been in the newspaper business long enough to know, that many times newspapers hold off on stories to satisfy important people for all kinds of reasons — legitimate or not.)
It sounds like you had a bit of a conflict of interest because the company in quesiton served yourself and your group. That highlights one of the reasons an idependent media is important to a Democracy. It’s difficult to serve two masters.
With that said, though, I think citizen bloggers add a lot. They are connected in a way often journalists can’t be or aren’t.
You need to decide what’s more important — getting the story out there or pleasing a company that has served you. You probably can’t do both.
As long as you are clear with the source that you are going to publish regardless of their concerns — and you’re accurate and fair — I think you’re on firm ground. But you need to be able to live with the fact that you will anger people whom you respect. And that’s hard for anyone, including journalists.
Thanks for sharing.
– Gina
Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org
Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.
Discover more from Another Think Coming
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another Think Coming 
I think there’s room for a variety of perspectives on this issue…balancing between the public’s right to know and the rights of individuals and organizations. Here’s an opposing perspective, just for fun: A business or individual may be considered to have a right and a need to the privacy to solve certain of internal problems in a timely, but discrete manner. Expecting that the watchful eye of the citizen journalist will keep everyone honest is hubris and delusional. First of all, human nature disagrees; people will continue to make mistakes in and out of business. Sometimes they make them because they don’t think they’ll get caught; sometimes they make them because they don’t know they’re making a mistake. Secondly, the journalist may paint themselves as the guardian of the truth, but how realistic is that? A blogger/ journalist hot on the trail of a story is not just serving the story. Professional self interest is at play….making them the absolutely least objective of partners… people who want to get paid and get their name out there are vested in scandal, scooping the competition and slanting stories so as to increase readership. In fact, “slant” is now considered one of the hallmarks of good journalism. Don’t expect to only see op-ed on op-ed pages. It’s everywhere and very amenable to corrupt use. Transparency might, in that case, just be a euphemism for harassment… used to intimidate political officials, individuals, businesses, perhaps to increase readership, perhaps to effect change. And the journalist or blogger as change agent… will they be the carrier of the light? No… selective transparency will be the order of their day. Transparent about this and quiet about that, depending on what suits their agenda.It is not as simple as the public’s right to know or the business that no longer acts immorally because they’re being watched by every blogger in town. While the bloggers are out watching everybody (ready to unveil their newest scoop or right the wrongs as they see them), who’s watching the bloggers? Somebody should. And don’t even get me started about retractions and backsteps. Once the horse has left the barn…. I think that principals of ethical practice are not exclusive to a contract (verbal or otherwise) between a blogger and a source.
I think there’s room for a variety of perspectives on this issue…balancing between the public’s right to know and the rights of individuals and organizations. Here’s an opposing perspective, just for fun: A business or individual may be considered to have a right and a need to the privacy to solve certain of internal problems in a timely, but discrete manner. Expecting that the watchful eye of the citizen journalist will keep everyone honest is hubris and delusional. First of all, human nature disagrees; people will continue to make mistakes in and out of business. Sometimes they make them because they don’t think they’ll get caught; sometimes they make them because they don’t know they’re making a mistake. Secondly, the journalist may paint themselves as the guardian of the truth, but how realistic is that? A blogger/ journalist hot on the trail of a story is not just serving the story. Professional self interest is at play….making them the absolutely least objective of partners… people who want to get paid and get their name out there are vested in scandal, scooping the competition and slanting stories so as to increase readership. In fact, “slant” is now considered one of the hallmarks of good journalism. Don’t expect to only see op-ed on op-ed pages. It’s everywhere and very amenable to corrupt use. Transparency might, in that case, just be a euphemism for harassment… used to intimidate political officials, individuals, businesses, perhaps to increase readership, perhaps to effect change. And the journalist or blogger as change agent… will they be the carrier of the light? No… selective transparency will be the order of their day. Transparent about this and quiet about that, depending on what suits their agenda.It is not as simple as the public’s right to know or the business that no longer acts immorally because they’re being watched by every blogger in town. While the bloggers are out watching everybody (ready to unveil their newest scoop or right the wrongs as they see them), who’s watching the bloggers? Somebody should. And don’t even get me started about retractions and backsteps. Once the horse has left the barn…. I think that principals of ethical practice are not exclusive to a contract (verbal or otherwise) between a blogger and a source.
Hi MiguelThe problem as I see it, with citizen journalism (and in some case professional journalism) is one of Bias.The blogger/citizen journalist/professional journalist may well be reporting “hand on heart the truth” as they see it, but it is subject to bias and opinion, to incomplete information or mis information.I am skeptical of some of the things that are posted. You have proven this with your IBBA post. Before I responded to you I searched for this. Hence my non-descript response. What was alarming was the number of people who took this post on face value because it came from a “respected” source – yourself.If we add to the mix self interest…One of the key skills I believe we must teach to our students is that of validating inforamtion sources, of healthy skeptacism. And we must also apply a healthy dose of this to our own reading and blogging
Hi MiguelThe problem as I see it, with citizen journalism (and in some case professional journalism) is one of Bias.The blogger/citizen journalist/professional journalist may well be reporting “hand on heart the truth” as they see it, but it is subject to bias and opinion, to incomplete information or mis information.I am skeptical of some of the things that are posted. You have proven this with your IBBA post. Before I responded to you I searched for this. Hence my non-descript response. What was alarming was the number of people who took this post on face value because it came from a “respected” source – yourself.If we add to the mix self interest…One of the key skills I believe we must teach to our students is that of validating inforamtion sources, of healthy skeptacism. And we must also apply a healthy dose of this to our own reading and blogging
@Audrey, excellent points. This really gets at the conflict of interest. On National Public Radio (NPR) today (01/12/2009), there was this nifty interview on Fresh Air about how the Monitor (Christian Science Monitor, I guess) was going to be publishing only online.The need for correspondents locally to cover tough stories that citizen-journalists/bloggers couldn’t cover wasn’t going to go away but the availability of funding was. Will bloggers be able to overcome the inherent conflict of interest, and as Andrew Churches points out, bias?
@Audrey, excellent points. This really gets at the conflict of interest. On National Public Radio (NPR) today (01/12/2009), there was this nifty interview on Fresh Air about how the Monitor (Christian Science Monitor, I guess) was going to be publishing only online.The need for correspondents locally to cover tough stories that citizen-journalists/bloggers couldn’t cover wasn’t going to go away but the availability of funding was. Will bloggers be able to overcome the inherent conflict of interest, and as Andrew Churches points out, bias?