Many news organizations have handed out guidelines to their staff about the use of retweets on Twitter. Their rules are there to help stop any controversial tweets before they get associated with the organization, or at least to encourage their employees to think twice before retweeting.
In a post on Poynter, Jeff Sonderman had this to say about the topic:
The Washington Post’s guidelines tell reporters not to tweet anything that could be perceived as reflecting political bias or favoritism. The Associated Press just published new retweet guidelines warning that retweets can appear to express a reporter’s opinion.
The result is a lot of confusion and fear that a “mistweet” could cost journalists their credibility or their jobs. That is a shame, because Twitter is a vibrant network for real-time information, and journalists should participate fully in it. The retweet is the network’s method of spreading information, and journalists should understand how it works.
The post goes on to suggest the use of a new designation, “NT”, to specify that a user is retweeting something as a neutral tweet. You can read the full post on Poynter here.
Do you think current journalism students will have to deal with this issue when they get their first job?
I think Sonderman was overthinking it,and I think some of the shrill responses in the twit-o-sphere were overly simplistic (like Dan Gilmor’s “give no evidence that you are human when you are online.”)
The AP’s guidance is generally sound. Adding wording to precede an RT such as “Interesting contrarian opinion” or “not all will agree but worth thinking about” don’t make you less human but more so and still make clear why you are retweeting while making clearer you are not endorsing.
I tweet, retweet, paraphrase, etc. It’s all valuable. Yes, AP probably got the syntax a little garbled. But some of the Twitterati’s responses seem to smack of “this is our playground and we already know the rules so that’s that.” News flash: Not everyone does.