Over at GigaOm, Mathew Ingram asks whether it matters whether some editors and reporters at the New York Times tweet or not, riffing on the “Twitter graveyard” that Charlie Warzel dug up at Buzzfeed. As Warzel notes, dozens of Times staff are dormant or are “eggs,” with default accounts. My answer is simple: yes, it matters, and as I clarified to Patrick LaForge, a long-time, active Twitter user who I think uses it quite well, this isn’t about how they tweet but whether they do it at all.
@palafo Classic analogy. Not tweeting may look like attending a cocktail party with strangers & choosing not to speak to anyone or to listen
— Alex Howard (@digiphile) September 26, 2014
Full disclosure: I gave the Times a much longer, richer answer regarding social media when their researcher interviewed me for the innovation report that leaked earlier this year. I was constructively critical then and will try to be now, as well.
It’s true that Twitter is being actively used by a smaller percentage of American adults online (19%) than other platforms, like Facebook. While I think that underbills Twitter’s influence and reach, I would be interested to see Charlie Warzel or a media reporter audit the NYTimes use & participation on Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Pinterest, Google+ Hangouts with readers, Reddit, or comment sections. That would be more representative of total commitment and action on reader engagement, as opposed to a Buzzfeed post that may feel like a potshot to people internally. As someone who has watched and participated in discussion about Times content on all of those channels, I can say with some certainty that there is a gradient of demonstrated use & active listening. As long as @deanbaquet is silent, though, folks at 620 Eight Avenue should be prepared for negative comparisons to Alan Rusbridger (@arusbridger) at the Guardian and external analysts wondering whether he understands how the top editor acts sets the bar, high or low, for a media organization. Reasonable editors can differ, as Lydia Polgreen does:
I’ve consulted for a number of people on this front over the years and done internal training at past gigs. Showing you are listening with a favorite or retweeting a reply that advanced a story is valuable; it’s the first step to ‘tweeting your beat.’ For instance, for Baquet, retweeting a different reporter sharing her or his big story once every day would demonstrate that he was reading his own staff and using the audience that he has accumulated to amplify stories would be a safe approach. From where I sit, leading a media organization now includes a profoundly public component, and as the “sources have gone direct,” top editors are ceding ground by not using social media to get their perspective into discussion; posting a press release online or emailing statements is a limited and limiting approach. As for whether someone can lead a newsroom effectively or not without paying attention to Twitter, knowing what your staff or those you respect in the industry are saying about you or your leadership, or how they are responding to public critique or your journalism, is relevant to understanding what their challenges or needs are.
I don’t understand some arguments I see elsewhere online that engaging with readers, across platforms and email, doesn’t make the product better or make someone a better editors. The best reporters I know have active inboxes, busy phones and are constantly vetting stories with sources. The idea that products and services don’t get better through exposure to the customers, clients, readers, buyers or users and listening to their responses goes against the grain of everything we’ve learned about iterative, user-centric design over the last decade, in media organizations or out. I find that many comments, @replies, email or calls I get about my journalism makes it better — not all, by any stretch, but a lot, particularly by people who do research in the space, who do what I’m describing, who report on it or are affected by it. If you don’t think so, that’s fine. It’s been my impression that Margaret Sullivan (@sulliview) is a great public editor because she is an active listener online, not just in her inbox.
I understand that some people may still feel that Twitter is dumb, inane, hobbled by a character limit or not a valuable place for senior staff to spend time. In response, I would suggest looking at how another executive editor at a towering media institution in the United States that’s also working to transform from a print-centric model is handling Twitter: Marty Baron, at the Washington Post: @PostBaron. It sure seems like Marty Baron has quite similar working conditions and roles and constraints as Baquet, and yet manages to approach public communication in a different way.
Time is not the issue at the Times or elsewhere. It’s culture. It takes 10 minutes a day to log on to Twitter, read replies, search for responses to your stories (just put in URL) and send a tweet and RT another one. Anyone in government, media, academia or nonprofits who portrays doing that as a bigger time commitment is being disingenuous, perhaps because they simply don’t want to use the platform, given years of negative media reports about how people act there. It’s certainly true that building and engaging an audience takes time, training or experiential learning, but it’s also worth noting that former Timesman Brian Stelter reported his heart out daily and managed to balance building large, engaged social networks. This isn’t the false dichotomy that I keep seeing, where it’s either you report or you use social media: it’s both/and.
Creating an account on a two-way platform and then walking away, ignoring people talking to you, is like going to a cocktail party with strangers and spending your time looking at your phone and ignoring people — or occasionally saying something at dinner and ignoring what people around the table say in response. It may be better strategically, from my standpoint, not to create an account at all than to do so and then abandon it. Your mileage, as ever, may vary.
UPDATE: Folks who said critiquing the lack of tweets by Dean Baquet wasn’t reasonable, take note: the NYT executive editor responded to Steve Buttry, writing that “the fact that I have made so little use of Twitter is fair game for criticism.” I’d take this as tacit acknowledgement that it’s fair game to critique other folks in the media, too. (In other news, I should have asked him for comment on this post, too.)
As Steve notes, though, Baquet adds an observation that I suspect will create more concern than it tamps down:
“One of the biggest criticisms aimed at my generation of editors is that we created a priesthood, that we decided who was a journalist and who was not. If you hadn’t done cops and courts you weren’t a journalist, etc. That characterization was right on. We deserved the hit.
As I observe the criticism nowadays, you will forgive me for noting that it sounds like a new priesthood is being created, with new rules for entry. Don’t take that as saying I should not tweet more. I should. Just a warning that each generation of journalists seems so certain they know what it takes to be a journalist.”
As it happens, the metaphor is one I know well: Back in 2009, when I met Arianna Huffington for the first time at the FTC, she asked me to write up our conversation for her site. So, I did. Its title? “Is Journalism Going Through Its Own Reformation?”
Maybe I’ve misread the criticism of Baquet that I’ve seen elsewhere, but my view is exactly the opposite: the smartest young journalists coming up and the Generation X-ers (ahem) that preceded them, along with their wise elders, understand at visceral level that social media, online video and smartphones have shifted how newsgathering works, democratizing publishing to all and enabling any connected person to report and commit acts of journalism.
The people formerly known as the audience, per NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, certainly know and experiences this during every breaking news situation, with all the confusion and misinformation it creates For much of the public, a top editor publicly choosing not to participate in the hurly burly of online conversation, even to the point of not contributing, much less demonstrating listening or acting as a hub to redistribute confirmed reports, might look like he or she is remaining aloof, choosing to preach from in front of the cathedral, not minister to a circle of friends.
Personally, I look forward to Baquet joining these conversations. I have faith they will be better for having him in it.
35 responses to “Yes, it matters if senior staff at your institution use social media. Here’s why.”
I agree. Retweet!
Why risk the politics of any negative feedback for that participation?
It can keep you somewhat safe in a media driven world to disassociate with that aspect of social media.
Seniors have been doing just fine without it prior.
Seniors use Facebook in increasing numbers. So do people from every demographic. Within a decade, not using social media will be outside of the norm at every age group. As for why risking negative feedback, as I noted, executive editors from other papers use Twitter just fine and are able to tap into the rewards of doing so. If an someone chooses to avoid risk instead of manage or mitigate it, the play where would not be to join at all, not to do so and then abandon the platform.
The reasons they may have choose to do so might outweigh in their eyes any reward for doing so. Including the feedback from this post. You must admit there is absolutely something keeping them away from twitter. Yet not going as far as to deactivate the account all together. Now that they have the account (they regret) it might look bad in doing so. They just stop responding to tweets.
Not so much “old dog new tricks” as the trick hasn’t been replaced by something better, quite possibly.
I don’t think Twitter has replaced the New York Times, or that it’s better.
Senior editors remember a time when twitter wasn’t just one more medium to expose their view. Is this the only way to get responses from these individuals?
The balancing point is between desire and demand.
I found this to be a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it!
The metaphor for tuning out those in your presence would not be correct for this application. Ignoring a trend is like choosing a different way to dress. Even if all those in your click look to be similarly, does it take away from ignoring those around you.
I disagree. People have not only been talking about Baquet but directly to him for many months, and he has not responded.
I think that was my point. Just because he made a twitter account. The overwhelming responses may have scared him away based on any negative feedback he may receive from those responses held against him some how. Sure someone in that field should reign in but if they choose to back out as a senior member. That should not be held against him directly. He may also find the time involved to being a regular participant something he really doesn’t have time allotted for. You will admit the more you tweet the more you will expected to tweet as well.
Your argument seems to based more on the premise of “you took your ball and went home, why did you come out to play?
When really all that may be about is something like 50cents famous opening baseball pitch. They may just want to go home after stepping up.
Thing is, 50 Cent can be terrible at pitching and it’s fine. Twitter is one tool of many in the digital journalist’s belt, and not knowing how to use it and where at it isn’t ideal for any editor these days.
I can sympathize with you on this point. Although “old dog new tricks” may not be the case as much as the mouse trap has not really been reinvented in the eyes of some senior members.
It seems to us these comments apply, regardless of the type of organization you’re in.
Reblogged this on devdevdev1995's Blog and commented:
Twitter useful for us
twitter is awesome
yes but still have to control ourself before writing a tweet
Great post. Social media nowadays, are seen as the gateway to an individual’s personality. Though sometimes, it doesn’t really reflect that much.
It also can be open to misinterpretations and understandings about that person. Make it a racial statement perhaps under that pretext and you could open yourself up to all kinds of accusations. Avoiding it all together by people who feel the need to be misquoted possibly could be the deterrent to twitter by certain senior editors. Besides, how much can be said in 140 something characters every time?
Interesting! Thanks for sharing!!
Nicely done! What drives me every day is the idea from Lessig that we are now a “read/write” society, where once we were “read” only. That subtle shift opened my eyes to the urgent value of participating.
Depending on ones mood at the time of tweet. Have you ever looked back at a statement you made remembering your mood or feelings about what you were responding to then regretted using those exact words to do so?
Pingback: Dean Baquet may just lurk on Twitter, but he’s clickbait on my blog | The Buttry Diary
Awesome writeup. Thanks for writing.
Interesting post! I believe that in today’s world no matter how old, while you’re still working you need to be active in social media to not only promote your business (or your colleagues), but yourself as well. Although Facebook might be too “personal”, Twitter is a pretty good platform for this as you suggested.
I thought big editor types would have staffers to maintain their twitter accounts. It is an interesting read as so many professions are on the cusp of learning how to use social media and at the same time many in those professions are screaming “why do I need to use social media? I didn’t become a writer, teacher, lawyer, ? To spend my day on Twitter!” But more and more, if we aren’t reaching out to colleagues across the globe, we are falling behind. Yes, it can be overwhelming, but the connections and support we can gain by being connected globally can also be very enriching and worthwhile.
Kathleen makes a very good point. It’s my opinion that “senior” staff are afraid of change as much as the rest of us. Only they have more stakes in the game many times as well. Truly it is just an addition to a very busy schedule, with notions probably that the opinions and feedback are obtainable through other sources.
Pingback: My year in media mentions | The Buttry Diary