My comments may be somewhat different from others. I read this as an organizational consultant who focuses on how companies treat and communicate with their employees. I thought this was an excellent example of engaging others, transparency and using adult-to-adult language. It's also asking for judgment vs. a long list of do's and don'ts. I'm sure your employees appreciate the environment you've created of trust and respect.
4
It seems to me that most of the comments from here that frame the NYT as unfair and biased don't really read the NYT news articles and are only responding in regards to the NYT opinion columns.
Trolls.
2
After suffering through the NYTs long running campaign against "fracking" in its supposedly objective pages, I wised up. Still read the Times along with a number of other news sources, to try and get "balance", but I am under no illusions about "the old gray lady". The WSJ does a much better job of keeping its editorial bias out of the news that it prints.
NYT demonstrates to NFL the accepted way to suppress employee speech.
2
Desiree Shoe, Homepage Editor at the Times, dropped a nuclear bomb today, at least for those who still believe the Times is impartial. The duplicity is astounding.
1
Maggie Haberman says: “Before you post, ask yourself: Is this something that needs to be said, is it something that needs to be said by you, and is it something that needs to be said by you right now? If you answer no to any of the three, it’s best not to rush ahead.”
Here is another question to ask yourself: would Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkite even have a Facebook or Twitter account?
4
Interesting that the NY Times has to reiterate to journalists the importance of neutrality.
Good point is the input of journalists into building the policy and if you've got 40m Twitter followers then other companies would do well to consider following suit, as I said here ...
https://helliwellmedia.com/social-media-policy-the-new-york-times-and-you/
TechCrunch sent me here and it did not disappoint.
So, here a Washington post reporter says a DEA appointment is "beyond infuriating. https://twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/919594647881699328
And here, six hours later he is thanking a reader for correcting him and pointing out that the appointment is for "drug czar and not the DEA. https://twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/919677017066557440
The problem with twitter is that everyone is primed to be outraged and have their biases confirmed. The reporter needed to be less infuriated and check his work before expressing an opinion on twitter.
2
So unfortunate that a Journalistic giant opened itself up to this kind of blah blah blah. Who cares what the public thinks. You're seeing and reporting on real life, daily, with all it's wonders and it's major flaw. We're in major flaw season; This is a time when the public can and does interfere with the truth. Keep trumpeting. The flow of journalistic info has gone from a one way, no holds barred telling of the truth to the public to a two way dialogue with those that will seek to kill our first amendment. KEEP ON TRUMPETING THE TRUTH. Keep it ONE WAY...
I'd be more interested, personally, in seeing the guidelines for whether and how "reporters" have to identify themselves as employed by The New York times.
[[Here There 3 hours ago
I'd be more interested, personally, in seeing the guidelines for whether and how "reporters" have to identify themselves as employed by The New York times.]]
So, good news for "readers" such as yourself, there's this thing called "google" which is how I found the answer to your question. I found it in under a minute on the interwebs.
[[20. Staff members should disclose their identity to people they cover (whether face to face or otherwise), though they need not always announce their status as journalists when seeking information normally available to the public. Staff members may not pose as police officers, lawyers, business people or anyone else when they are working as journalists. (As happens on rare occasions, when seeking to enter countries that bar journalists, correspondents may take cover from vagueness and identify themselves as traveling on business or as tourists.)]]
https://www.nytco.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_...
Have a nice day.
3
Hi,
As a reporter, after reading this, I feel sorry for the journalists at The Times. I'm also sorry that from now on I'll have to tell my friends that "I had respect for The New York Times".
1
You don't "have" to do anything.
2
It appears the Republicans have effectively terrorized your publication.
4
Isn't this just being an objective "reporter" of the news? The idea that because of a new platform- social media- the NYTimes must (re)declare and remind its staff that they should exercise objectivity and desire to hear and report BOTH sides of an issue is curious.
Isn't this basic journalism? I guess it wasn't.
2
[[Isn't this just being an objective "reporter" of the news?]]
I think people confuse objective and impartial.
I expect journalists to have opinions and points of view but I expect them to work hard at keeping their biases at bay and I expect them to follow the story wherever it goes.
Some media outlets held "Caitlyn" Jenner up as a hero after the transition to female began and then were all stunned when Jenner came out as a conservative. They needed the narrative to lean completely to the left. And there was a great deal of comfort with those heavily airbrushed photos of Jenner.
Obviously, The Times doesn't want to have a Jemele Hill incident and I think it's wise to remind reporters that the NYT brand is more important than any reporter's personal brand.
2
this is ridiculous. yet another example of the ny times trying to appease those who already hate them, utterly failing to provide serious journalism in an urgent time, and generally maintaining an ideological position that holds no water in the current climate. kudos to mr baquet.
2
[[abelard hasam
this is...yet another example of the ny times trying to appease those who already hate them, utterly failing to provide serious journalism in an urgent time]]
Oh, will you please can the hysterics. Here are some of the headlines on the homepage at this moment, with nearly all the stories written by NYT staffers.
Once Mocked, North Korean Cyberpower Is a Global Threat
Sessions Sends Lawyer to Aid in Transgender Case
How Weinstein Used Lawyers and Money to Evade 2015 Case
Truck Bombings in Somalia Kill Nearly 300, Official Says
Richard Wilbur, Poet Laureate and Pulitzer Winner, Dies
After Las Vegas Shooting, Concertgoers Became Medics
Oil Firms Learn to Move Ancient Product With New Tech
Show me another news organization with this range.
1
How can a supposedly unbiased news paper have the liberal portion of the country hang on and support everything that that newspaper thinks, does and says, while the other half of the country proclaims that that paper is Fake, Biased News,and that paper can actualy not see that it is in fact totally biased to that liberal half?! It would seem to me to have to be a conscious decision to deceive and lie to do so.
4
[[Lee AZ
How can a supposedly unbiased news paper have the liberal portion of the country hang on and support everything that that newspaper thinks,]]
Your premise is flawed.
I opposed the Times' endorsement of Hillary Clinton and apparently so did many other "liberal" voters (although you should be less reductive if you hope to have more engaging conversations).
As far as this whole "fake news" phenomenon goes, you really should be able to see that for what it is...Trump putting his thumb on the scales of public opinion. His business empire, family, Russia connections, and money laundering accusations will come under more scrutiny in the coming months, not less. He needs to poison people's minds against the news sources most likely to uncover wrongdoing.
1
Personally I can't claim that my opinion that the Times shows obvious bias is based on the social media postings of anyone other than the times itself. Everything from click-bait headlines to washington post type stories which accuse but offer no proof or even a name. Nothing smacks more of poor credibility than doing some silly public stunt like responding to Trump's poorly worded accusations about your outlet with a billboard and full page op-ed piece about truth and then heading out the next day and posting more biased and word-crafted articles with misleading headlines like some clickbait website out of vietnam. You did this to yourselves, and intelligent people will continue to call you out for it.
3
It's as easy to stop being overtly biased as it is to stop smoking.
3
This is all about appearing to be unbiased, but in truth the NYT is anything but. The only readers who view the NYT as unbiased are those who agree with its anti-Trump, stop-Trump orientation. It is a bit too late to be pretending otherwise.
5
The words are nothing, how they are applied in practice everything. Note ESPN's variant treatment of Schilling and Hill. Which do you think would be a career killer at the NYtimes's shrunken premises: getting caught in violation of policy at a Sanders rally or wearing a MAGA hat?
4
An institution wise enough to employ reporters such as Farhad Manjoo, can do better than these social media guidelines. Readers need look no further than the first sentence of the internal message distributing them. In it, the Times declares itself 'dominant' in social media. While its pages report on the growing sentiment that the large Internet brands have become too big to be trusted as platforms for public discussion, the Times apparently applies a different set of rules to itself. Its ok for it to be dominant; but not for others. Readers however can console themselves with the knowledge that self-confident companies with vast influence over our culture rarely if ever actually refer to themselves as dominant. Instead, they use actions instead of words. The rah rah self importance of self-described dominance should be stricken from newsroom communications. Its below The Times best traditions.
1
Surprised the heading isn't Trumps beats up Old Grey Lady and wins!
1
Condemned by your own pen this morning, NYT:
"In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation."
Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if the same standard applied to your news. We all await your explication of the NYT "journalistic reputation."
Some years ago, didn't it read: "All the news that's fit to print?" We're waiting and half of us hope that truth will be the core.
4
I may be a twit, but I've never tweeted.
3
With yellow journalism flourishing, especially online, I'm glad to see The Times taking a stand and publishing its guidelines. Too many U.S. readers confuse opinion with news, or never knew the difference.
1
These guidelines are as my father used to say “as clear as mud.”
1
A large segment of our population believes that the NYT is biased toward a liberal philosophy. Of course, the people who believe that are themselves biased toward a conservative philosophy. If you could actually find an unbiased person, it would be interesting to hear what they think.
I think that the NYT sincerely tries to always print the truth and that their opinions are generally correct. If one side lies a lot and the facts don't support their position, then they will claim anyone stating the facts or reaching rational conclusions is being biased. There is not much you can do about that except persevere. That is my biased opinion.
1
I am not an unbiased person, as that person does not exist, but I am a moderate, and I actively seek out news from all different sources because I want to know all sides and form my own opinion. Therefore I read the NYT and Breitbart and everything in between. The NYT is definitely on the liberal bias side.
The idea that the NYT can be unbiased is not really possible because its employees each have a personal bias. Objective is a better goal, as each author and editor should identify their personal bias and then give equal weight to opposing views; when offering opinion, clearly state that it is opinion.
It is very interesting to see the liberals saying that you are selling out and you should continue to bash Trump in your news and social media, and the conservatives telling you that your news is just as biased as your social media postings. You might congratulate yourselves that they are almost equal and therefore you are in balance. But I really can't say that is true. The bias comes through in what you fail to report, the language that you use when you do report, and the failure to find a credible contrary view in much of your reporting. Corrections to major blunders are hidden in the weeds. I will still read a lot of your articles but you can't be described as neutral or objective at this point in time.
1
I agree that there is probably no such thing as an unbiased person or institution but I think there are different degrees of bias and different ways of expressing that bias. I don't think the NYT is as biased as Breitbart News or Fox News and neither do they resort to lying or rejecting objective scientific evidence. As far as giving equal weight to opposing views, I think that is valid only if both views are based on verifiable facts and do not reflect some hidden selfish motive.
On a larger, related note: the Times is forever advancing its view of how the world should be, rather than reflecting it as it is. Its social agenda is omnipresent, and it makes me feel manipulated.
For example, today's paper illustrates the travails of steelworkers by photographing a burly, tattooed woman. I have no doubt that such women exist, and are fine steelworkers, but it simply distorts reality to argue that she is representative of steelworkers in general. I wait for the article explaining the rigorous training undergone by Army Rangers to illustrate itself with a picture of the sole woman to complete it.
4
The disheartening thing is that these guidelines even seem necessary to the Times. The fact that the paper has been reduced to hiring reporters who do not understand how the internet game is played is sad. However, I am not really surprised. Often when reading tech related stories it feels like the authors actually believe that the internet can be transparent, private, and secure, and that any new piece of technology is automatically progress, of unquestioned benefit to humanity. In any case, agreeing to not post anything at all on social media would hardly seem a sacrifice as a condition of employment as a Times journalist.
I assume Dean Baquet and others have thought this through but, if they have not, they better figure out quickly what they will do when these guidelines are violated, for surely they will be and soon.
I also hope the Times' leadership does not simply dismiss the perception averred in many of these comments that the paper is biased. While an editorial stance is journalistically appropriate, the reality is that in addition to covering more fluff than news -- presumably to get more eyeballs for financial reasons -- the paper has more and more skewed its choice of articles and, worse, published incompetent and silly pieces. I am not suggesting P.B.S. Newshour's pretend "balance", nor an increasing emphasis on "names" as authorities. Rather, the paper needs to go back to the basics of quality journalism, thought-out, well-documented, well-written pieces.
3
The left is caught paying at least nominal homage to the traditional notion that newspapers should be objective everywhere but the editorial page, and its fealty to The Resistance (to Donald and all whom it considers racists, misogynists, Christians and ill-educated fools.) (The categories overlap).
The Resistance is presented as a sacred moral imperative to impede and undermine Trump by any means necessary. Therefore, it is said, the usual rules on objectivity must be suspended in favor of political action. Resisters are canonized in Hollywood and Manhattan.
To put it mildly, a very large portion of the country disagrees that Trump is Hitler. When the left suspends the usual constraints of reporting, it needs to be careful. What is a moral imperative in the eye of the beholder is not one to everyone (it usually takes a lot of time to build up a wide consensus on the existence of a moral imperative). What goes around comes around.
2
"While you may think that...social media accounts are private zones...in fact everything we post or “like” online is to some degree public. And everything [you] do in public is likely to be associated with [you]."
the separation of the public and private is an ongoing and perplexing debate for Times journalists, Times readers and the rest of the world, and it became more perplexing with an anonymously looking electronic machine called a computer that now can interact with the rest of the world.
n.b. we usually vote privately (anonymously), usually keep medical records private, gossip in private, usually engage in sexual relations in private (although marriage ceremonies are public), usually give birth in private--although is there is often a public interest with all of these activities.
Personally, I like when reporters write from their points-of-view even when writing an article, compared with an editorial. I don't think Republican-oriented voters will venture over to the NYT if its' articles are neutral in scope. Neither would I visit Fox Or Breitbart even if they suddenly decided to be neutral in their reporting. Most people like to visit newspapers who write in a manner similar to their way of thinking.
How can one write about:
i. a Somalia bombing that kills hundred's of people.
ii. Trump's conservative biases on Abortion, birth control, and the ACA
iii. The Supreme court nominations of the last several years.
We all know that with regard to the Supreme Court nominations, that they are in fact biased nominations, even though judges supposedly are to be neutral in their way of thinking.
If the world was Eden, then newspapers and their writers wouldn't ever have to pick one side or the other. Sadly, the world is more like H__L, and there is just too much bad in the world to sanitize newspaper reporting on a neutral level!
"We believe that to remain the world’s best news organization, we have to maintain a vibrant presence on social media."
Vibrant presence? With this new policy, your most followed journalists have stopped posting on Twitter. That's a real loss to many of us who seek out added context to important news.
4
I am really amazed by the negative comments on the NYT ethical guidelines for employees. Is this an infringement of First Amendment rights? I don’t believe so. Mr. Trump’s recent twitter comment on reviewing the licenses of the media whom he feels distribute “fake news” would be an infringement of those rights given that his definition of “fake” is anything he doesn’t agree with. I doubt that Fox News or Breitbart would consider publishing their ethical guidelines, assuming they exist.
For those who feel that the NYT stands alone in issuing guideline on participation in public partisan political activities please be aware that the US military also has restrictions on their members.
“Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly specify a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.”
2
People who constantly yap about the NYT being far left etc are just spewing the usual extremist propaganda from the far right, neo-fascists, GOP smear types, babbling idiots, libertarian anarchists who worship at the altar of Rand and seek to spread her subversive Soviet style of fail anarchistic rule, etc.
I doubt that some of these people actually read the Times. Not every conservative falls into the broad mass above, but regrettably “conservative” includes a lot of extremists who hold strange beliefs - the brand is dead
Totally amazed that so many readers don’t know the difference between news stories and editorials/opinion pieces. The Times is liberal with the latter but objective when it comes to reporting. If it were not for the NYT, WaPo, CNN and the WSJ, Trump would not be held accountable. The mainstream media are doing an incredible job. They will not be silenced by this authoritarian, nationalist president and his minions. They do their jobs. If you want to see what partisan looks like, go to Breitbart,which is trying to destroy the country.
4
I have distinctly mixed feelings about asking your reporters to appear unbiased on social media. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and with generally obvious exceptions, to express it publicly. People must be clear that they are speaking as individuals, and not on behalf of their employers.
The problem at the Times, and it is a serious problem, is that reporters' bias has become so much a part of your news coverage. This includes the stories themselves, and especially includes your headlines. Most insidiously, it includes what you choose to report, and what you choose to disregard. Ignoring the elephants in the room has become a hallmark of news coverage at the Times.
Your opinion pages are just that, opinions. But all too often your editorials get their facts wrong, and that doesn't help things any.
The Times has succeeded in maintaining strong ties to its liberal base. But it has lost most of its credibility with over half the country. For a publication that likes to think of itself as the "paper of record," that is not a good thing.
As a postscript, the Times should not have shut down its office of the Public Editor.
4
I believe that Times employees should *want* to abide by these guidelines on their personal accounts as well as official Times ones, but there's a freedom of speech issue here you'd better hope they don't want to press. I'm not sure how that would be resolved in the courts.
As for Haberman's quote:
“Before you post, ask yourself: Is this something that needs to be said, is it something that needs to be said by you, and is it something that needs to be said by you right now? If you answer no to any of the three, it’s best not to rush ahead.”
That's pretty close to the Buddha's three questions about whether or not something you're considering saying would be defined as Right Speech: Is it true? Is it helpful? Is this the right time and place to say it? As Maggie did, he then went on to add that if any of the answers is no, then it's best to keep it to yourself.
These questions are useful in almost all situations, not just social media.
1
"a freedom of speech issue here you'd better hope they don't want to press. I'm not sure how that would be resolved in the courts."
Do you mean the same freedom of speech enjoyed by Curt Schilling, once of ESPN?
For the umpteenth time, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech ONLY from GOVERNMENT INFRINGEMENT.
However, it is wor5h noting that the Times is a union shop, with work rules and regulations agreed by the Times and the Newspaper Guild through the process of collective bargaining. The Times very well could be challenged on changing contractual terms unilaterally, as it should be.
1
Tough topic. Nice line in the sand. In business, if as a staff member my views differ from my company, and I post these differences on my personal social media account, my standing with the company is most likely in jeopardy. Companies usually want employees to support the mission publically, and expect private lives to accrue no dishonor to the brand. That’s just the way it is. I think about journalists in a similar way and I am thinking many others do, too. I look for reliable news sources to keep me abreast of what’s happening in the world. Reliability, or the perception of this, is the decider for me in which news sources I consume. If a journalist for a news organization writes one way publically and opines in another way on social media I now have questions about what I am reading. I don’t have the time or the will to “research” what’s “right” so I am going to shift my attention to other news sources. For me, it’s business, even though it’s journalism.
1
I rely on the reporters I follow for tips on good writing and provocative opinion from across the NYT and from other sources. They are far better plugged in than I can possibly be. I hope they will continue to refer me to good journalism and opinion from all sources. as well as noting new developments and calling out hypocrisies in government and business and culture. I also have been enjoying getting to know the personalities of some of your reporters through their social media feeds (thinking particularly of Sopan Deb here) and would be disappointed to lose that.
1
There can be no guideline for truth, as without honesty, totally, and equally exposing arrogance, deception, lies, evil behaviour of any kind toward any person, race, gender, religion, one has no way forward for society as a group or our country as a nation. Just like the recent Ken Burns series on Vietnam, the whole truth was portrayed, and which, newspapers as a whole did that upfront, and not after the fact. We really are where we are politically because this didn't happen, as to question powerful people, those with the money, those elected persons, who don't see the whole truth because they don't want the whole truth. Rush to judgement who, what, and why on Vietnam, on previous time there in Afghanistan, what was accomplished, and what happened with a gap presence after the Soviets left, and then the country was invaded by the Taliban Afghanistan, or Iraq, rather than well thought out plans to double down on diplomacy with Saddam Hussein, we were invading blindly with commitment which proved to be disastrous for tens of millions, ruined landscapes, history, villages flattened and bombed, little left, trillions of dollars wasted. Does writing with all of this in mind before actual events take place, as a prevention, or only after it all goes wrong.
Keep up the good work, NYT. Your social media guidelines are good and important. What your journalists do will reflect on the NYT. I find the adverse reaction to the guidelines fascinating and unnecessarily judgmental.
I read the NYT and other sources to learn information that I don't know or may want to think about.
The NYT is an exceptional source of reporting and writing that I appreciate very much.
Thanks.
1
In those instances in which the facts of the story reflect badly upon Democrats and/or The Left, The New York Times can’t be counted on to cover that story. With a pillow. Until it stops moving.
20
This is such trash that I can only assume you don't actually read the NYTs. I read countless articles about subjects that reflect badly upon Democrats or the Left. You are clearly cherry picking and therefore your comment is of no value or credibility.
1
"damages our reputation for neutrality and fairness"
Neutrality? Fairness? At the NYT? Is that an attempt at a joke?
25
OY. It's over. Enough already. You are one leveraged merger away from extinction. See you in Drudge.
16
why even hide being a liberal, hit-piece newspaper?
Just own what you are.
19
Appearances, aka facades. Vital to liberal outlets.
For those of you that are supporting the obvious bias in the Times reporting I want to make one thing clear. It is not how the Times treats Trump that bothers the Conservative base it is how hypocritical they are in their reporting. If they ever went after and pursued President Obama the way they are going after Trump 50% of the country might not have Reporters ranked below used car salesman. Please don't try and deny your bias just own it at least then you would be respectable again also add some more Conservative voices besides your one token white christian middle of the country homer
16
So are we to assume that all Presidents are equal and that any difference in how two Presidents are views reflects a bias in the reporting and not perhaps a difference in the quality of their governance?
1
Oh goodness. Have you looked at some of the critical reporting during the Obama presidency and the Clinton campaign? And indeed, further, President Obama did not behave in the way that #45 is behaving.
2
Seth: that puts the issue as a bizarre absolute. Moreover, estimations of the quality of a president's governance are principally in the eye of the beholder. And when the beholder is the Times, we know the outcome.
1
This may be an effort to head off more Dudich incidents, in which a NYT social media editor was heard not merely admitting, but positively boasting, of his attempts to undermine Trump in all he does and says. And saying, in effect, "Hey! This is the N.Y. Times!"
What amuses me most are the comments that defend this approach by saying, in effect, "We're not biased! Our positions [on a variety of polemical issues] are the truth!" Talk about unclear on the concept.
(For raising the Dudich incident, which the Times must be mortified over, this comment will not likely see the light of day.)
17
I simply cannot describe how disappointed I am with Executive Editor Dean Baquet. Trump has been slinging mud at the Times throughout his campaign and into his presidency. I do not consider the New York Times a left wing rag. The only people who would think that must be John Birch Society Libertarians. I was very proud of the New York Times for taking up for our country during Trump's ongoing attacks on our First Amendment rights. He has slammed the NYT, by calling it the "failing NYT," endlessly, and wants to restrict what newspapers print as far as his presidency is concerned. Dean Baquet decided to throw in the towel, and he also threw his journalists under the bus by demanding that they not publish anything partisan on their private twitter and Facebook accounts. I cannot believe that he wants to take away the First Amendment rights of reporters just to placate Trump. It is absurd! I have lived through many administrations and I can tell you all that Trump makes Nixon look like a pussycat! I wish I could dig up Nixon, with my bare hands, reanimate his rotting corpse, and place him in the White House instead of Trump! I say this as a lifelong Democrat. If the New York Times will not stand up to Trump, who will? Dean Baquet well knows that most of the major German press have published many articles about Trump warning all of us that he is a dictator because they lived through it and recognize a tyrant when they see one! The U.S. is no longer a world leader thanks to Trump.
9
It's not the job of the press to "stand up to trump " , their job is to report the news .
1
The editors of the Times have the power of editorial governance over what their journalists write in the paper. The do not have that power over what they say on social media are offering guidelines for self-governance where their social media imprint might impact the paper's reputation. This is reasonable, well advised and in no way interferes with their first amendment rights.
the media loved covering their frankenstein monster while he was still lying on the table being energized with lightning, sparking sales and spiking ratings.
now that their creation is actually rampaging throughout the countryside, they're like alfred e neuman: what, me monster?
at least I admit I voted trump to destroy a corrupt system.
so far, so good.
That's right: Keep the editorializing and conservative bashing in the "straight" news stories and keep the sensationalism on the editorial pages.
3
Too little, too late. You have already destroyed your reputation by letting this go on too long. You are now reaping what you sowed.
18
"In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions,
promote political views, endorse candidates, ... Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively."
Scratching my head trying to understand why Times reporters may not do on social media what they do every day in the Times.
18
"Attempting to cover objectively"......hmmm
That is the problem with NYT reporting in general, and the social media posts just serve to expose the obvious bias. In the management's view, if the writer's would just be more careful in their social media posting, perhaps we could continue to claim objectivity without being caught. Social media exposes the bias in a way that cannot be denied. They need to get at the root cause--bias at all levels of the NYT. Objectivity means actually reporting stuff that makes liberals and their causes look bad, or exposing the weakness in their arguments. Example: Climate Change. There is much information that runs counter to the conventional view, but you will never hear it here. There is an actual lively, interesting debate taking place, but NYT does not deem it newsworthy. I subscribe, but I do not trust NYT reporting to be objective. I always acknowledge that bias and look for balance elsewhere.
Well, they're only barring partisan conduct on issues that the times is trying to cover objectively, and in most cases the times is NOT trying to cover the issue objectively. That limits it to a handful, like um, ah, hmm, do they still have that coins and stamps column?
A real journalist should shun social media like the plague.
8
"If our journalists are perceived as biased or if they engage in editorializing on social media, that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom."
I didn't know whether to laugh with disbelief for the total denial of the NY Times editors or snort with dismissal of their total hypocrisy.
16
Wow!
Just how much out of touch with reality are the owners and editors of this so called paper of record?
Wow! Speechless ...
Are you actually telling your reporters to practice self-censorship so that this paper can maintain a facade of objectivity?
Look, it doesn't matter what you report, if the other side doesn't like what you've written, they will cry foul and say that it is bias.
All of your reporters should be free to air out their political opinions. But, when it comes to reporting, they should stay with facts and first-hand accounts. A person's opinions do not discount the facts when they report it, just as the facts cannot be changed just because you believe and express otherwise.
Just look at the chorus of deniers accusing your paper of having a liberal bias, when in reality much of your reporting is tilted to conservative.
So much of your reporting favours the status quo and the powers that be, lest you offend the advertisers that fill your coffers.
I've long ago given up any hope I've had of the Times speaking truth to power, and because of this very failing, the times will continue it morbid decline into irrelevance.
7
Just sticking to the facts and first hand accounts will not eliminate the bias of the NYT. The tone and slant of reporting is obvious even in hard news. Then add the stuff that the NYT does NOT cover and you begin to get a more complete picture. Every source such as the NYT has a bias. The challenge is to acknowledge and actively work to balance that bias. NYT does not do that hard work to balance their various biases, which may even be different by subject area. I would not be surprised if their business reporting were conservative whereas political or social were liberal. That does not end up balancing the bias overall. Each non-editorial article needs to have an active effort to balance bias.
All the guidelines need to say is: "Knock off the biased editorializing onTwitter and keep in your stories where it belongs."
That's all they needed to say.
13
We all know why you want the NYT's reporters to keep their views to themselves.
If they let us know where they stand, we will all know that they all stand on one side of the aisle.
The NYT needs to seriously think about the meaning of the word "diversity".
19
What is the goal here?
Is free speech under assault by NYT?
Shall all voices be silenced until Trump is the only voice?
Scary times
4
Please stand up for conservatives' right of free speech on college campuses, websites and social media.
1
So, you've decided it's not okay to appear so partisan.
I'd prefer you'd decide it's not okay to BE so partisan.
15
While I see the point of these guidelines, I find it somewhat offensive that NY Times reporters are not allowed to have a private life where they can express their personal thoughts and feelings about the world they live in. Our country is built on the right to free speech and none of our citizens should have to give that up because of the place they are employed.
9
They don't have a private life. It's all public.
What? They express their personal, left wing thoughts every day in what are suppose to be unbiased news stories.
1
"We’ve always made clear that newsroom employees should avoid posting anything on social media that damages our reputation for neutrality and fairness."
Yes but you do not have such a reputation for a large portion of the electorate. Try actually being non-partisan for a change. Have a more balanced team of reporters. Try listening to the other side to understand their point of view, for a change. I saw a quote from a discussion on CNN where the person said "If you look at the front page of the NY Times is looks like it is 1938 in Germany. And it just isn't." It just isn't.
And Hillary will never be President, no matter what you do.
11
The Times is too far gone for diversity to reach the newsroom. Perhaps we will see diversity in the wedding announcements one day, but I doubt even that is attainable.
7
Perhaps if I got a salary, benefits and pension plan of the magnitude that New York Times reporters got, I could accept this social media gag. But since I don't, and most writers and bloggers don't, I would suggest that if you don't like what I put on Twitter, just don't follow me. That should be the solution to every single social media complaint: don't follow.
5
This policy will be used as a cudgel by the right-wing against even the most anodyne expressions by Times journalists. It is borderline cowardly and ignores the reality of the environment we are living in.
7
Impressive and well put together.
most of my twitter feeds are your reporters. thanks a lot.
7
If reader trust is important...
The Times should post video of meetings where decisions are made over what stories to pursue and what stories to print. What gets covered is at least as important as how it is covered.
6
Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.
8
In the interest of transparency, you ought to make sure readers know on which side of the political aisle your writers and editors feel most comfortable. Don't fake neutrality. If political reporters (or any reporter) can't report without adding their bias to the story, turn them into "analysts," or file their stories under Letters to the Editor. Be honest with your readers about who you truly are. But if you want to aim for actual neutrality in your presentation of information, then have editors who can identify and eliminate a writer's bias in a story while retaining necessary factual information. If you can't do that, then the need for "guidelines" will continue.
7
Hamilton’s Prodigal Son
It is clear that we have indeed lost sight of the combined vision of the Founding Fathers, when the NY Times and its readers praise ‘Hamilton’ the musical play so much but the same people seem to find it incomprehensible that Trump is in several ways exactly Alexander Hamilton’s creation in this government - the executive branch is the result of Hamilton’s arguments in favor of monarchy.
It is equally clear that we have a vast amount of political free speech right now, a Right which Thomas Jefferson would be supportive of.
But what has gone completely missing is the precedence set by Professor Benjamin Franklin in our nation’s capitol. It’s like a system support pillar gone. For example, Franklin had chemistry labs on both sides of the Atlantic and would have listened to the chemistry and physics arguments surrounding global warming, which involve solar heat-induced carbon reactions that impact the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect. And he would purposely propose mixed capitalist economic policy, rather than regressively dragging us back toward monarchy-capitalism, as the right-wing extremists have been trying to. We could really use both L and R extremes out of the way, so that our government could return to its proper, rational, Centrist basis…
"We could really use both L and R extremes out of the way, so that our government could return to its proper, rational, Centrist basis…"
return? when was it ever like that?
It is becoming harder and harder to ignore the elephant in the room. Whether it's the Iran treaty, the UNESCO withdrawal or Harvey, there is an underlying thread uniting them, and it is the refusal of the mainstream media to address the issue that has lit the fire in social media. Eventually it will out. Harvey despite his team of legals and fixers was eventually exposed.
2
Looks good to me. Even of someone is biased in a bad way, they can make efforts to improve. Imposing some discipline is a good idea. It would be good if the headlines and content of articles submitted to some discipline too. For one thing, make headlines accurate and fair. Find some columnists who can defend Trump. Having a never Trumper conservative does not count. Find people who can make reasoned defences. Contrary to the views of some, supporters of Trump do no reject science, facts, reason, etc. There are irrational people on all areas of the spectrum. For example, why not give Scott Adams a column.
5
The Op-Ed page used to be devoted to views very different from those on the editorial page. Offer to hire Steve Bannon to do a biweekly column, and open every one for comments.
Granted that I may be a dinosaur, but agreeing to not post anything on social media would hardly seem a sacrifice as a condition of being a Times journalist.
The disheartening thing is that these guidelines even seem necessary to the Times. The fact that the paper is reduced to hiring reporters who do not understand how the internet game is played is sad. However, I am not really surprised. Often when reading tech related stories -- especially from certain reporters -- it feels like the authors actually believe that the internet can be transparent, private, and secure, and that any new piece of technology is automatically progress, of benefit to humanity.
I assume Dean and others have thought this through but, if they have not, they better figure out quickly what they will do when these guidelines are violated, for surely they will be and quickly.
3
It is the bizarre cognitive dissonance of Dean Baquet that he requires that Times reporters and columnists “maintain a vibrant presence on social media outlets,” while basically denying them a private life on SM, and neutering what they CAN post, limiting that vibrancy, I’d say.
Given that people, including the president, who have no compunction about what THEY post on SM, are not restricted, the Times has chosen to send their employees into a knife fight armed only with emery boards.
1
As a journalist, I try to use online media to monitor what is going on rather than take part. That is the heart of what we do. I also believe that I, like so many other journalists, spend too much time on the echo box of Twitter and the vapid faux dialog of Facebook. If there is an extra story to tell, an extra interview to do, an extra article to read, an extra telephone call to take - do that rather than retweet or like.
6
It is well known to the right of center, The NEWS print and network media of any large metro is left of center. What use to lean left, is now fully entrenched left of center, if not far left of center.
If the paper endorses a Democrat politician, that position is left of center. That's been the norm for decades. Nixon's "crimes" would be jaywalking when compared to the opinionated accusations reported as NEWS, in today's headlines and article.
In recent times, accelerating the last decade, to the "pedal to the medal, run all traffic signals" of the last and current political cycle, it's become customary and often oblivious, to form a report showing the bias of that report.
A report may reference "He said he didn't..." but add, "he did" An article may want to point out both sides of an issue statement, to feign unbiased. But...
The statement or policy of the subject will be reported to imply it as their's, conjured up in a vacuum of their mind. The reputed line added by the reporter, will likely include "...a study done by..."
A political article of an opponent e.g. Republican, reported in such a way as to emphasize a statement or policy as a negative. Never mentioning it was an opponent's or their party's view, not long ago. It won't be notated should that history be mirrored.
Today's reporter, office worker, college student, is shunned at best, if their thoughts and beliefs are not the same as the herds' and flocks' of their place of work or place of study.
3
Not that this is a bad idea, but the timing of it, in my opinion, has the appearance of trying to conceal the extent of your staffs' bias.
7
If all the energy, bandwidth and money devoted to social media were repurposed to more productive pursuits, all the problems of the world would be solved tomorrow.
In the meantime, the best way to win, is not to play. Remember: when something is free on the internet, you're the product.
4
Why stop at social media? I think companies, the Times included, should issue guidelines on what their employees can read, what clothes they wear, with whom they associate, and any activity which could indicate a personal opinion. I can't trust the Times reporting not to be biased if their employees have opinions that can be discerned in public just like I couldn't eat a hamburger from McDonald's if the person who cooked it was an outspoken vegan on social media. I applaud the Times for leading the way in exerting more corporate control over daily life and I hope all companies quickly follow suit (I'm looking at you McDonald's).
1
I don''t know if "Social Media" covers television programs like MSNBC or CNN but I often see Times reporters on them giving very one-sided opinions about
"the man who calls himself president". How can they accurately and honestly give these opinions (which I agree with) and then straightforwardly report on the "man.. .president".
4
These guidelines seem reasonable and sensible. I advise everyone to stay off all social media. You don't need a real you and a virtual you. The real you will suffice.
There are many comments here saying this policy is a waste of time because everyone already knows that Times reporters are terribly biased left-wingers. The truth is that Times reporters are too nice to the right-wingers running our government. How, for instance, can a Times reporter accurately describe our president's actions without seeming biased against him? If someone is amazingly ignorant, shouldn't that be reported? If it is, won't the reporter seem biased? If someone tells the same lies over and over, shouldn't Times reporters mention that? If they do, won't they seem biased?
Telling Times reporters not to appear partisan to someone somewhere will mean that they should avoid telling the truth. They won't be able to criticize politicians on social media or report obvious misbehavior or stupidity, because doing those things will seem unfair. They'll also need to watch how often they mention certain sensitive issues. Unfortunately, we outside the Times will get the impression that Times journalists think everything is fine.
Instead of being muzzled in this way, it would be better if you prohibited Times reporters from using their real names or mentioning their connection to the Times on social media. Let them express themselves as private citizens, the way the rest of us do. That way they can tell the truth without making anyone angry at the Times.
26
lol 'deserve's got nothing to do with it' I thought reporters were supposed to....report.
2
LWF - It is easy to not be biased if you just report the facts and full context of quotes from the actors in their story. You also give equal space and position to all sides of a controversy.
To bad accurate complete reporting isn't their policy. Social media restrictions is way too little, way too late. The only use left for NYT is wormbed compost
5
I agree but I would just say that eliminating bias is not as easy as it might seem. You have to diligent and active to add the other side of the story. Then people can truly decide for themselves.
Just report and I mean report (state facts not opinions) and everything will fall in place. Why will anyone trust you if 90% of your coverage is against a single entity.
21
Obviously posted by someone who does not read the NYTs or only reads articles on one subject.
1
You're wrong on this.
A professional can cover a story dispassionately and still have strong personal opinions.
More importantly, you're caving into the delusions of Trump. You're allowing Trump, and the conservative media, to frame this discussion as, "All liberal media is biased"...all the while they laugh at us.
Everytime you bend over backwards to be 'fair', you're being anything but.
Speaking of which...
But her emails.
36
Every time. Not everytime.
Wrong. The NYT covered a story about a politician committing a crime. You may not like that they covered it, or that the crime was taken seriously by some members of our government, but it was a crime nevertheless.
The consequences of Hillary getting away with that crime can now be seen with the current administration doing the same exact thing without anyone batting an eye.
Seriously?
If only reporters could avoid editorializing while writing their articles, too, not just when on social media.
24
Good move. I've long thought that a purportedly unbiased news reporter should not be expressing biased opinions. It undermines the credibility of his paper.
5
In an age where one political party rejects the very notion of objective facts, reporting the truth will appear partisan.
Climate change is real. It has been experimentally proven.
Tax cuts do not create jobs. It has been experimentally proven.
Sexual preference is not a choice. It has been proven experimentally.
Yet all of these positions appear inherently partisan. When facts become a matter of opinion, this is inevitable.
51
Lots of theories here that have not been proven. Short of climate changing. (it always has)
AGW on the other hand, is not proven.
2
Climate data was tampered with and it has been revealed.
Tax cuts created a boom when the JFK admin administered them, and again when Reagan did it (Bush too).
In fact pulling money off of the street (the fed) and lowering taxes created a massive boom in the 80s, Obama did the opposite (of course).
Sexual preference is not a matter for public discourse.
And the fact that the left is being exposed for the double standards and failed philosophies of their current incarnation is main stream news.
Yet you stand assured amidst all of this unravelling.
Two of your three "experimentally proven" assertions are patently wrong. What ignorance to arrogantly state them as fact.
Once the perception of journalistic objectivity is gone, it's gone. Professional journalists' objectivity is their integrity. Without it they're simply entertainers.
It's ironic that the proliferation of social media and the associated freedom for journalists to express partisan opinion has effectively moved the American media toward the old Soviet model, where the purpose of the press was to shape the public's opinion.
22
Does this apply to columnists? Would seem silly if it does.
6
Bret Stephens deleted his twitter account.
1
Come on now, this is laugh out loud funny! NYT reporters can't say anything on social media that would make them seem biased and partisan. So what's the difference? We all know they're partisan and biased. They work for the Times. They're Democrats and liberals. They love Clinton and hate Trump and Republicans. We don't have to read their tweets to know that.
58
You're not paying much attention: There is PLENTY in the Times that criticizes the Dems. It's just that Trump is the most outstanding example of stupid newsworthy antics. Trump creates headlines. If Hillary was in the WH, we wouldn't be so fired up.
Let's remember this from Oscar Wilde in connection with Trump: "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
12
Mrs. Proudie, if they were all so liberal, why did they do everything in their power to marginalize Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton, measurably to the right politically of, say, Richard Nixon?
The Times is, and has always been, an establishment organ. It is center left, at most.
3
Let's say they're what's called neoliberal: They love Clinton and hate Sanders.
3
Please explain how this applies to topics that should be non-partisan, but a party has made issue with. For example:
Science
Climate change
Women are people
Minorities are people
Black lives matter
LGBT rights
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
Separation of Church and State
Personal religious beliefs/affiliations
Nazis are bad
Trump is a serial liar
...
60
Excellent, excellent point.
A person just making a statement of fact, "Climate change is real, and people caused it" is going to be considered biased to Trump and friends.
So basically, you're telling your journalists they can't say anything personal that some conservative somewhere may not take offense at.
They can't support gay people. They can't express their religious beliefs. They can't talk about science.
Did you even consider the ramifications of these guidelines?
12
The issue is not a story on any of these subjects but how it is presented. A piece on Climate Change, for example should include equal time for contrary views/facts and not buried at the end of the piece.
For a liberal, EVERY.SINGLE.SUBJECT is partisan.
It all sounds reasonable to this reader. However, I shuddered to read Peter Baker's concern for what the White House thinks. No matter what the Times does or doesn't do it will always be targeted with lies from this administration. I would not change a thing for the White House. And I certainly would not show fear.
13
I read through it. A pervasive thread seems to be that journalists should not appear to be biased to the Republicans. I regret to inform you that this ship has sailed already to the Bermuda Triangle and reached a parallel dimension from whence it will not return.
The present administration will always call you 'Fake News' for every critical article, irrespective of any sanitization of tweets by your reporters. Don't let it get into your head and restrict your reporting. Please make sure your articles are accurate and not biased, that is the only important thing.
P. S. This reader center thing is much, much worse than employing a good Public Editor (e.g. Margaret Sullivan).
40
Reasonable people will always call out the NYT for Fake News when it prints articles with unnamed sources talking about documents the NYT has never seen.
This sort of "reporting" is rife with abuse and, as we've seen, embarrassing inaccuracies.
4
I appreciate the intent but results should always trump intent. These policies ask journalists to avoid the appearance of bias in social media postings. The truth is that your journalists are biased. Your editors are biased. Your management is biased. These policies don't address the bias of the journalism produced by this publication. To be fair, since this is a policy addressing the use of social media, I wouldn't expect it to address journalistic ethics directly. This policy however does link to the Times' Ethics in Journalism document. Being an employee myself and required to read my employer's handbooks of expectations, I can appreciate that this document's 57 pages is a bit of a burden to read. However, to reach to the root cause of NYT's situation today, one does not have to read past the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first section of this document and realize it's violated daily. "The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible". These social media policies made without a corresponding address of the obvious violation of the Times’ own published ethics guidelines present the appearance of a management team that no longer wants the corroborating evidence of their journalists’ bias aired in public. Instead of reacting to the social media use as a symptom of something wrong in the organization, they are simply trying to close their eyes to it.
23
Journalistic ethics stem from this need for objectivity -- a "just the facts, ma'am" approach to reporting that is peculiar to America. In Europe for example virtually every paper is open about what side they are on. Here, on the other hand, newspapers struggle for "objectivity" while at the same time not realizing that the very nature of journalism means one is going to question things, question the status quo, question tradition, etc. So there is this tension. But why do we need objectivity? We don't. Let every newspaper acknowledge whether as a publication it is on the right or left. So many problems related to journalistic ethics disappear if the paper simply acknowledges bias. "OK fine, we cover the news from a liberal/left viewpoint." Fine, no issue with that. But don't pretend to be objective when 90%+ percent of the reporting staff are Democrats - it's dishonest and people like yourself see right through it. Hiring Ross Douthat and David Brooks to be "token conservatives" doesn't work either because the NYT has succeeded in turning thm both into closet liberals (well, maybe it does work...). Anyway the NYT would be so much better off in my view if it would simply admit bias instead of going on with this "we are the paper of record" schtick. It's getting old, NYT -- just admit you're on the Left and move on.
1
Every source does have a bias. I would prefer that an active effort be made to find and report the other side of the story. The European model allows people to read only one side of the argument. TV news is getting that way, and the internet is full of polarized opinions. It would be helpful to have a centrist publication that integrated differing views without putting a spin on it. That obviously is not the NYT, but I would like to find something that was truly objective.
But why do you guys not cater to Trump supporters as well if you want to things objectively? It's so left-wing that you're alienating people that sit on the right side of politics. Just my two-cents, every political piece seems to be an opinion piece that doesn't reflect half of the other America.
28
You are right. It makes no sense to operate any business venture that intentionally alienates one-half of America.
4
If one believes that one can create alternative facts, then one "caters to" Trump supporters.
If one is interested in the truth, then, by their very nature, one alienates those who believe that fiction is truth.
2
I'm a conservative. The NYT doesn't alienate me because they are on the left. They alienate me because they do not acknowledge they are on the left. Instead, they pretend to be the "just the facts, ma'am" so-called "newspaper of record" when in reality they are in the tank for the Democrats. If the NYT openly acknowledged their bias, they would cease to alienate readers, left and right.
2
Charitably, this policy is harmful -- perhaps not to the Times, but certainly to the public. We, as readers, are better off knowing the extent to which ostensibly objective reporters are, in reality, deeply angry partisans who are unable to maintain civility in discussing the very subjects they may be called upon to report about. What this policy does create a false impression, by silence, as to the objectivity and self-restraint of your reporters to keep their highly-charged personal opinions out of their supposedly objective journalism.
10
Perhaps it's keeping a civil tongue in one's head. Perhaps it's exercising self-restraint. I'd rather now know about anyone else's opinion of politics or religion unless I ask. Editors may have opinions. Reporters write news stories based on facts, or should anyway.
5
"our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views"
What a joke. This is exactly what we hear from them every time they appear on cable news. If they are not prohibited from expressing their same partisan political views on the cable TV platform this social media compact becomes a pyrrhic victory for objective journalism.
21
" If our journalists are perceived as biased or if they engage in editorializing on social media, that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom."
Unfortunately folks, I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.
44
As opposed to Fox News? Unfortunately truth, science, correct Constitutional interpretation, the rule of law and human rights now have a liberal bias.
1
Are you denying your employees their freedom of speech? How is this different from NFL owners telling their players not to kneel during the National Anthem? I expect that you will publish a well seen story supporting the owners who feel that the NFL protesters are hurting their brand.
4
First amendment rights do not apply to the employees in the workplace of a for-profit corporation which the Times and the NFL are.
If a McDonalds employee spouted off on a partisan issue how long would they be employed? Why are the employees (players) of an NFL team allowed to do so, on company time, on company property?
5
Freedom of speech only applies when dealing with the government.
2
Employees, on the job, are not protected.
The paper and NFL are not public institutions.
They are for-profit companies. The workers are not protected. Amazing that the left doesn’t understand the distinction. Yet, they expect a public institution, like a university, to limit free speech of anyone they disagree with. I suppose Government and the Constitution are not taught in high school these days. Not good.
4
I watched the entire almost 2 hour TimesTalk yesterday on covering the White House.
What was said by Dean Baquet yesterday, which is a ludicrous insult to the intelligence of your readers, is that Baquet feels like the Public Editor was rendered obsolete by social media, twitter in particular, with a putative ability to quickly bring errors to the Times’ instant attention. Of course, what crowd sourced blurbs of 140 (or 280) characters are no longer submitted to objective internal critics with about as much journalistic experience as your executive editor. It has always been stated in the lifespan of 6 Public Editors that the Public Editor does NOT answer to the Executive Editor or anyone else on the masthead; he or she answers ONLY to the Publisher. Yet there was Dean Baquet giving a risible rationale for eliminating a position that theoretically never answered to him. How did he come to be involved in the decision to defenestrate the position which, unlike twitter, allowed a thoughtful, veteran journalistic eminence to question Baquet & any member of his staff? She/he also had a platform for posting those questions and the answers given by staffers.
Just as an example, in October, 2014, in response to questioning by Margaret Sullivan, Baquet admitted too much reliance on anonymous sources, & promised to forcefully reduce their number. However, 3 years on, the opposite has occurred, with ever greater number of anonymously sourced articles. Can twitter call him to account?
44
I didn't hear the Times Talk, but I read your comments with great interest and complete agreement.
Firing the last Public Editor and closing her office was one of the most unfortunate things the Times has done in recent memory. The closing did substantial damage to the paper's credibility and reputation, from which I do not believe it can easily recover. The publicly stated rationale, which as you note was that the Public Editor had been rendered obsolete by social media, was absolute nonsense. Your phrase "a ludicrous insult to the intelligence of [the Times'] readers" rings true.
If the Executive Editor was, as you suggest, a major decision maker in closing the Public Editor's office, that further undermines the credibility of the Times and its senior leadership.
If
12
The Internet is the greatest source of information humans have ever invented. Social media is greatest source of bigotry, misinformation, and outright lies that humans have yet invented.
True journalism is almost dead in USA. While a bigot may enjoy reading bias, bigotry and opinions they agree with....that is not news or facts or journalist.
Real Reporters and journalist should be unbiased, objective and report accurate information. If you want "entertainment news", buy a grocery store tabloid.
Bravo to NYTs for finally setting some guidelines on dealing with the cesspool of social media.
25
The problem is that, in 2017, the NYT has more in common with social media than it does real reporting and real journalism.
3
I have been a paid journalist, off and on for sixty years and I can only say, "It's about freakin' time, Dean." That's my social media persona talking. As a sane person, I add that there's has been thought put into the policy and it has nice balance. But it may not work because, as Editor Banquet and reporters seem to sense, the social media environment encourages hand grenades, incoming and outgoing. I'm disengaging from the fray myself, and am more sane as a result. Maybe journalists should, as well. It is a toxic vat of venom, not a rational process, and it may never be anything else.
6
If only these reporters could the same discretion in their work.
10
While these are useful and needed guidelines, it is too little, too late. The employees of the NYTs have already outed themselves and their leftist bias through their online posts in various forms.
True, everyone of us has our leanings and biases, but the blatant disregard for objectivity no matter one's biases, has permeated the NYTs to an extent that it will take YEARS for the trust to be regained.
What happened to the paper I used to read almost cover to cover every day back in the 1980s when it was (then) the Gold Standard for journalism? "How do you know so much?" I was asked once. "I read the New York Times everyday," was my reply. Sadly, it has degenerated to a left-wing propaganda outlet seemingly unaware that technology has replaced its ability to bring us "informed news" and now puts out left-wing propaganda instead of balanced, unbiased, in depth coverage of important events which it once did. Don't believe me? Then just look at what caused the Times to put forth these guidelines.
38
The fragmentation of media continues.
The same thing is happening in broadcast media, as OTT providers multiply and content producers look for more diverse channels to get their product in the hands of those who want to consume it.
If you have cable, you often feel like you have 500 channels and nothing's on..and if you have to watch another Jason Bourne movie..you're going to break the tv...yet the move towards ala carte linear tv (7:00 show; 7:30 show; 8:00 show) via the internet is growing like wildfire, and your ability to consume media on your phone, phablet, tablet, Laptop, PC or TV continues.
It's tough for an old-school paper to make it in this wild wild west...but being objective in your news reporting is a good start.
Why alienate 1/2 your potential audience before you wake up in the morning?
This is like the students at Georgetown finally rebelling and demanding that the School Administration hire more conservatives to teach classes and attend classes.
People are finally having enough with being told how to think and act by their media outlets (Maddow, Hannity, Lemon, etc..), and they're now thinking for themselves. Amidst the onslaught of 'fake news' people are looking for authentic outlets for real objective journalism. If they don't find it here, the fragmentation will continue and the NYT will be a relic destined for the dustpan of history.
1
sadly, all you wrote is true. I now read the nyt not for the news, but to be informed about what the a certain portion of the public is being fed or wants to believe. i will look at the front pages at news stands, and see the nyt front page, and the front pages of other, also, international papers, just to confirm that I am not crazy, that the nyt today is lost in their own arrogance, their own story, their own ignorance, that they are blind to the reality, that their facts are the ones they pick and choose, not the news, not the issues, ... it is a loss to readers like myself, long time subscribers.
The NYT is left wing?
You must have never read a left-wing newspaper.
1
The very fact that this memo had to be circulated to the staff proves that there is a problem with blatant bias exhibited by NYT reporters. The barn door is being closed when the horse has already escaped.
38
[[SheWhoIs Somewhere USA
The very fact that this memo had to be circulated to the staff proves that there is a problem with blatant bias exhibited by NYT reporters.]]
Not true. Every company I every worked for sent annual ethics guidelines which had to be signed and returned and none of those companies was awash in ethical violations.
1
The NYT is, by its very nature, a partisan publication. What you're telling your people is to be more sneaky or clever about their partisanship.
35
Enter pseudonyms
3
[[What you're telling your people is to be more sneaky or clever about their partisanship.]]
Yes! And then they very sneakily published those instructions here for you to read. Shhhhhhhh! It's a secret.
No, by its very nature, it is a news organization, something Fox News viewers may not be familiar with.
I'll save my comments for Twitter! ;)
1
Conservatives and Trump supporters everywhere will welcome this day, that the NYT will no longer be biased in their reporting. Uuuuh, yeah.
.
NYT readers and maybe NYT reporters may get a sense of "control". Reporters appear to be reigned in and not write from the heart. Especially on social media As tragic as some events are, "just the facts, mame", is what readers would prefer.
.
With this edict, the NYT seems to be joining a growing list of organizations that seek to control the voice of employees and customers. Talk, judged to be inflammatory, will be squelched. Youtube has taken steps to limit videos that show gun owners how to perform certain tasks with their weapons. "And, they should", say the gun control crowd. And, get the Nazis off the Tube. Yeah.
.
Twitter has briefly limited Rose McGowen's account because her speech was, well, inflammatory. I think Hillary Clinton had an opinion on sexual assault victims. But, Twitter appears not to be on board.
.
What is happening is, established entities are limiting speech determined to be inflammatory. Disagreeable speech has been defined to be obscene. Maybe these organizations are on to something. People will be happier if they are exposed to "happier" speech.
.
Or, given human behavior, people will find other platforms to get their voice heard. And it will be louder, more obscene and delivered with flame thrower intensity.
3
Rose McGowan’s transgression, accoring to the twitter general, was to reveal someone’s private phone number in violation of terms of service.
2
I could see how Harvey would be upset at having his phone number revealed. By someone he raped. The nerve of that woman.
.
Now, he's faced with the inconvenience of going to the mall. Standing in line. Talking to someone that doesn't know how important his time is. And dealing with all of the other nobodys.
.
Poor Harvey. And, That's What Happened.
The point was that Mike got wrong the reason why McGowan’s twitticism privileges were suspended. I didn’t, and still don’t, for sure, know whose phone number it was. But it clearly wasn’t due to “inflammatory” speech.
1
This policy should have come a long time ago. The NYTimes has lost credibility, and readers with its leftist propaganda. They used to be the "Fourth Estate". Now they are the "Fifth Column".
Where have the morals and priorities of this country disappeared? The media and entertainment must take blame for the decline of America.
23
Only to hopelessly right wing reactionary readers. To those with even a finger hold on the real world, this is not the case.
I'd love to know what precipitated this particular crackdown. It's not like the entire world doesn't know how partisan New York Times reporters and editors are.
16
Oh gosh...You lost me at "Our journalist must not take sides". Kind of a joke don't ya think?
17
I liked the way it was. This is just going to send the leftwing nutcase haters underground. But they're still going to be leftwing nutcase haters. I least the old way we knew what they were.
5
What a joke. Why try to hold your employees personal social media accounts to a higher standard than the paper itself. This is such an obvious left-leaning publication that it falls off the counter at most stores here.
12
Long overdue. Once a great newspaper, now fighting for it's life economically and trying to to remain journalistically relevant, the New York Times, IMHO, has lost all semblance of objective reporting vis a vis politics and social issues.
21
Large corporations' policy makers seem to think in a vacuum. As to California based employees, CA Labor Code 1101-1106 was enacted in 1937 to protect employees' free speech rights
It never ceases to amaze me when some air-headed Human Resources Dept employee tells me "We are a national company. California laws don't apply to our California employees, even though our company has an office there"
If the employer at issue has employees working in California, the employer has violated those employees rights by enacting this sort of social media policy
Labor Code Sections 1101-1102 provides:
"1101 No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity
1102 No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity
4
You are aware that New York City isn't located in California, yes?
1
Amazing that journalists need to be told that filling social media with hyper-partisan postings undermines their credibility.
That said, there has never been any better evidence of liberal bias than the social media feeds of mainstream media journalists.
10
These platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc) have become addictive for so many, myself included. I’ve been trying to use them less, as my husband has complained I am on my phone too much and the avatars my friends and family members have created for themselves — and the one I’ve constructed for myself with my own posts and profiles — have created unnecessary conflicts that have disrupted real relationships.
But not being able to read your reporters’ feeds on Twitter has made me feel I’m missing out on important news or news analysis I can’t get elsewhere. And honestly I shouldn’t feel that way. I should get all the information I need from my subscription. So thank you for this policy.
I can’t read Glenn Thrush articles anymore without thinking about all of his online (shady) comments about HRC. I wish that wasn’t the case. Hopefully this policy will protect other reporters’ credibility.
1
I'm less worried about your twitter feeds and more concerned about giving a megaphone to warmongers (Judith Miller's botched WMD stories), your clear affection for a tried-and-true-and-terrible candidate for the Democratic nomination whose name sells papers rather than one who could have changed the things we actually talked about in America and the way your op-ed page is clearly enamored of charter schools.
An accusation of bias is only as interesting and serious as the accuser is; too many people say 'bias' or 'fake news' when they see something they dislike which is nonetheless factually accurate. In our shameful age any paper can report, factually, the things Mr. Trump does and says and still be accused of bias; resist this high-minded impulse doubly fiercely when it is inspired solely by the shouts of low-minded people.
Also, 'balance' is not contrasting a correct idea with a false one, or contrasting personal use of an e-mail server with another person's six bankruptcies, multiple lawsuits and several fraud investigations; this sells newspapers, but isn't a viable model for actually talking about real concerns. I want more idiosyncrasy, energy and calls for change from Times writers, as that's why I subscribe; creating a bland, mealy-mouthed 'balanced' paper so you don't get shouted at by idiots who would yell at you regardless for reminding them about anything more controversial than the weather would not only betray the paper but end my subscription.
7
Could someone from the NYT explain to us, your readers, what specific social media posts/incidents led to this review and these guidelines? I sense something happened - but what?
8
Just a guess: I think Trump happened.
2
Ask Hillary. Didn't she just put out a book on "What Happened?"
1
Consider this a poor example but indicative of the nature of a problem your guidelines miss... Story states that "John Smith claims that sunrise is at 6:30 today. However, I spoke with Tim Jones, expert in many things and member of many credible groups who stated emphatically that sunrise was not at 6:30 but at 6:28:17. Therefore, anyone that thinks that sunrise is at 6:30 is an idiot and should lose their right to observe sunrises."
A good writer or editor knows that there are many ways to change a story in subtle ways that lead to an almost imperceptible but real slant on a topic of interest. My example is rough at best but I'm not a good writer. A great writer or editor will do everything in their power to report a story without those very subtle bias influencing uses of prose. And with Social Media, and the whittling down of our attention span of the years, these methods are lacking in nuance and are becoming as heavy handed as my example
"If our journalists are perceived as biased or if they engage in editorializing on social media, that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom."
Hmmm.... maybe Liz Spayd was right.
2
It would be nice if the New York Times were to "hire" unbiased reporters and not just tell them how to "appear" unbiased. To refer to the Times as having a reputation for being unbiased and not wishing to damage that I can only say that that train has left the station. They betray their bias in their own memo by making the reference to President Trump as being a worthy target of derision, just not one that their reporters should comment on.
7
THANK YOU!
Impressed that the NYT see's the light at the end of the tunnel.
Objective reporting.
Wish the other news media would go back to basics, fair, unbiased and objective.
2
In other words, stop liking every "All republicans are deplorables and anitfa is right to beat them down" post that crosses your transom.
6
Much of these 'revisions' just seem to be what old school journalists always did - kept their opinions to themselves and tried to cover news with as much genuine objectivity as they could muster. Congrats, NYT, for finally getting that readers want to make up their own minds, and not be crushed under the weight of opinion badly disguised as news!
4
What kind of journalist feels the need to be on Facebook in the first place?
11
The Times all but insists that its reporters maintain a presence on social media. That comes directly from Dean Baquet.
3
What this really says - We know you are all biased as heck to the left on every issue that matters. Just please, please try not to advertise it so much. The NYT needs to continue to claim that we report "real" news. But feel free to bash Trump in every way possible. In other words, carry on.
7
I don't think that you clarified your position enough, regarding "objective" journalists, versus the guidelines for your journalists whose job it is to editorialize and give opinion.
It is NOT a journalist or reporters job to give opinions!!! Opinions belong it editorial section with editorial writers. News reporting is suppose to be about reporting factual events...not personal bigotry.
6
All of this is sad. It is sad that a NYT staff member cannot have a private s/m presence distinct from a public one. So much for a reporter's extreme experiences which make NYC vibrant and unique. This is censorship of an opaque form--fear of being misconstrued. No doubt painful and bitter experience require this. The result is that the immediate intimacy that s/m offers is really a filtered and self-conscious image. Having shattered the old genteel forms of courtesy and decorum, technology must be constrained by new guidelines. This is self-censureship but still censorship.
6
Be nice if the WH would issue Social Media Guidelines for the POTUS (i.e. take his nasty phone away from him)
10
“Always treat others with respect on social media.”
Admirable? Yes, but those including the Soviet Troll Army, those animated by Faux News, and the Twit-in-Chief, who would like nothing better than see the Times’ demise, feel no compunction to be constrained by your guidelines.
This means that you have relegated your staff to bring an emery board to a knife fight.
Think this through very carefully, folks.
7
Mr. Baquet: thank you, it is about time. Your publisher has received many notes from moi, about the large number of snarky/sarcastic tweets of some of your staff, including the Washington bureau.
All it would take to statistically infer gross political bias is to run content analyses on their TWIT feeds and discover -- OMG!! -- 95% hostile to President "Not Hillary." And that's "Without Fear Or Favor?" In a pig's eye, sir.
This is on top of laughable copy such as "the non-partisan Center for Science in the Public Interest" .. which was founded by Ralph Nader. Y'all find 20% (D) in that crowd, I'll donate $1,000 to Save The Children.
Ditto, the "non-partisan Tax Policy Center." Who, itself, honestly states that its official name is "Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center." What's the problem, NYT reporters can't read accurately?
Again, thanks, and good luck.
1
Got it. Avoid creating the impression on Social Media that you are as biased as you really are. In turn, just reflect it in your everyday reporting and "News Analysis" or "Politics" or the myriad of other unlabeled opinion in the NYT.
Guess what? It wont work, because everyone knows that it is very likely that any reporter at the NYT is liberal and generally unsympathetic to any republican/conservative view. They don't need to wait to figure it out on Social Media.
NYT take a day off from your diversity crusade and on that day seek diversity of opinion.
Only
5
Frankly, this is appalling. Essentially, you are asking NYT employees to give up their first amendment rights to work for you, which is antithetical to a free press, and you are doing so because you fear the president, by your own admission. You should be ashamed.
16
I agree!
1
Pending Trump tweet: "The Failing New York Times apologizes for its biased and unfair Coverage of me. Sad!"
11
Smart policy. Every corp should articulate a similar policy, especially those whose employees are at the center of customer interaction.
1
I find this all very sad. I started out with Friendster, LiveJournal, MySpace, Tribe and some that predate the www as we know it. I likened them to a virtual bar where I could unwind about my day. Sometimes that would include jokes about my boss or assignments that day. Now I am pretty much limited to banal jokes, pet pictures and sports tslk lest something be screen capped and used against me. Freedom of speech does not feel free anymore.
5
Sauce for the goose, to go with the humble pie. Eat hearty partisans.
1
What's next, guilt by association? "Don't be seen hanging out with Liberal Columnist A after work if you are a "straight news" reporter. It might be seen as an endorsement of her/his views by both you and the Times...
"• Always treat others with respect on social media. If a reader questions or criticizes your work or social media post, and you would like to respond, be thoughtful. Do not imply that the person hasn’t carefully read your work."
I hope this rule extends to the comments section. I have had posts withheld(especially in Dealbook) merely because I took issue with the reportage (not the reporter).
13 Oct 12:03pm
5
You really must resist the reflex to assume I am a Trump supported but this key point, the first one you mention, tells me you are not serious. I can read and I can plainly see that NYT reporters, even some of those mentioned, do not follow this guideline.
"• In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation."
Your own editorial board has posted multiple opinions that 'violate' this guideline.
Objectively? Really? I can discern objective, most people can. The NYT does not do objective. You know it if you are honest with yourselves. I worked 16 years in federal civil service. We know how to transition from one political administration to the next seamlessly, objectively. Not the vast number of NYT reports publishing articles today.
But you won't see objective from me in my comments. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If i'm being blatantly partisan I'm being sarcastic, and cynical and not very pleasant because I am reacting to what I see in the NYT.
1
These social media guidelines are the most comprehensive I have seen and it's clear that they were developed thoughtfully.
Of them I have no criticism.
A particular passage merits special attention.
"...aim to reflect a diverse collection of viewpoints. Sharing a range of news, opinions or satire from others is usually appropriate. But consistently linking to only one side of a debate can leave the impression that you, too, are taking sides."
The Times has championed diversity of race, gender, and sexual orientation.
What is prominently absent is viewpoint diversity.
The Times would NEVER hire only whites, or men, or straights.
If you populated your newsroom with a diversity of viewpoints then social media postings would naturally reflect that fact.
But you don't.
“As of 2013, only 7 percent of [journalists] identified as Republicans,” Nate Silver wrote in March.
(The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
By JACK SHAFER and TUCKER DOHERTY May/June 2017)
3
See little value in most of this Anti-Social media....
1
Perhaps everyone should publish under a pseudonym. Then they would be free to express their personal opinions like everyone else in a free society.
2
"If our journalists are perceived as biased or if they engage in editorializing on social media, that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom."
A little late for that don't you think? Your "journalists" have already shown their true biased colors...
6
In other words, please make it less obvious that that vast majority of our journalists are as biased as it gets and live every day to damage the Trump Presidency and anything NOT Leftist agenda.
Its really hard to get a cat back in the bag.
4
Folks - you have no credibility among the non-elite voters and it's not the fault of the activities of your staff on social media.
7
In essence. Don't always be biased to the left which most of you are.
5
Culivate sources? On social media? Really?
1
brought to you by the same leftists that say the NFL can't make their employees stand for the national anthem...
7
Exactly who was a) complaining about a lack of balance, and b) actually cares?
2
Too little, too late. Way too late. It's sad how so many once-great American businesses, from sports leagues and talk shows to this once-iconic paper, have tainted their trustworthiness by choosing sides in the divisive politics of our day. Alienating half of one's customer base is never a good business decision. It seems this paper has finally figure this out... painfully too late.
Readers already know in advance what to expect when they consume "news" from various popular sources, this paper included. The biases of each outlet are well-known and well-proven. Let's not kid ourselves.
While I commend this paper's effort to reverse course, it is simply too little too late. No one is fooled. Objectivity is no longer seen as the cornerstone of the paper. Your course was plotted by your own actions long ago.
Good luck winning back the good graces of the conservative half of America. It'll take a monumental effort to reposition yourselves as honest, unbiased reporting.
8
I think you are confusing the editorial pages with the news pages. The NYT reportage on news and issues has always been outstanding, and continues to be so.
10
No, there is no confusion. Often, it is hard to distinguish the Time's "news" stories from its editorials, in tone if not technical structure.
Once again it appears the mainstream media looks down its nose in horror at an existential nemesis, "social media," and chooses to avoid getting a tiny pinky toe dirty in the muck being spewed by any and all voices on Twitter, Facebook, and the like.. The problem is that these polite rules meant to protect the New York Times and its reporters from accusations of bias will do nothing of the sort, because unlike pre-internet days, major media entities no longer call the shots or dominate our information as they once could. With so many millions of citizens relying on social media or biased TV news networks like Fox as their dominant sources of current events coverage, I believe the New York Times and other major news organizations should have been and must now be committed to a much more aggressive engagement with social media and fake news via coverage and investigation into the misinformation, false reports, and lies that did and continue to threaten a citizen's clear understanding of important issues in this modern misinformation age. Unless legitimate media like the New York Times bring the full force of their remaining power into this fight for truth, the dishonesty of the social media crowd will continue to blow democracy even further off course.
5
I'd like to propose one additional simple social media guideline that will burnish the paper's reputation; don't allow your opinion columnists to tweet, or write at all, anywhere.
> Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.
Which issues does the Times define itself as *not* seeking to cover objectively? This rule seems to rule out taking sides on global warming, income stratification, police violence against civilians, and crime statistics, to name just a few. Which issues are Times staff -- not just journalists -- permitted to take sides on?
A ruleset like this is meaningless without examples of what is acceptable and not acceptable. As it stands, with the questions, the list is heavily biased toward "don't speak online", which I would hope is not the intent.
4
As a former daily newspaper reporter and a former national board member of the Society of Professional Journalists (www.spj.org), I applaud The Times for revising its social media policy in a way designed to reinforce its long tradition of independent and nonpartisan journalism.
In the increasingly polarized nation we now live in, the internet has given us both a great wealth of useful news and information and a glut of news and information that is not trustworthy. Making sense of the world has never been easy and it is certainly not just a matter of picking a small number of even the most reliable news sources. In many ways, we - including journalists - are all on our own with no net. This is a real test for our democratic society and for the many individual citizens (us) on whom its future rests.
But it is important that at least some strong news organizations maintain their journalistic credibility as reliable sources of news and information (and also of fact-based and fair opinion). Without that, it become difficult to have a conversation rooted in some generally agreed upon facts.
I know that the election of Donald Trump has caused many people, including some inside the Times, to want to enlist the newspaper in the resistance. This is wrong-headed. Trump is only a part of the problem and sacrificing the legitimacy of key institutions of our democracy is not the solution. We will need them even more now as we try to hold our country together.
2
Unlike the rest of the MSM which encouraged their reporters to throw away any and all objectivity regarding Trump and the right, the WSJ had ordered its reporters from the start to stay objective and anyone who didn't like that policy should go elsewhere. Bret Stephens is a prime example of the type who left.
Maggie’s criteria will eliminate most of her own posts (and many others from NYT reporters as well). “Needs to be said by you right now” is a high hurdle.
4
I think it would be best to just start with a clean slate. It is way too late to even attempt to "pull back" and hide the bias of your reporters. AND they seem to be addicted to twitter, addicted to "anonymous sources" and reluctant to EVER correct a false story. Just look at how it is "chosen" what goes on the front page!
3
Wait. Now you're saying employers CAN control the speech of employees? I'm very confused where liberals stand on free speech. One day they're violently preventing a conservative speaker from talking, the next they are claiming NFL players have Constitutional rights to do whatever they want at work, and now the liberal Bible says that's not true.
4
I think it is terrible policy, and Times reporters are covered by a collectively bargained EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT with representation from the Newspaper Guild. I would hope that the guild would challenge a unilateral fiat.
1
Liberals didn't support Curt Shilling or James Damore when they exercised their free speech rights during their employment. Which is why many of us do not support the kneeling and we demand the firing of players. Until the left supports free speech for EVERYONE, they don't deserve free speech themselves.
The increasing insertion of actual Twitter posts, mostly from celebrities, on the NYT site has been increasingly grating. Please do not do this. If somebody famous said something worth quoting, just quote it. The size and visual impact of the tweets are greater than they deserve.
3
Seems like a complete waste of time. Twitter is why everyone knows the media has no objectivity. No sense hiding it. It's better to be open about being a progressive outlet than lying or pretending you're not.
3
Bravo NYT.
3
Why does the NYT not consider itself "Social Media"? Is it not media? Is it not social? If it isn't, what is it?
History is not always positive, and we look at newspapers for opinions
from reporters. A newspaper is not just for information, but for provoking thought. If newspapers want another alternative, then how about having 2 reporters writing each and every article with opposite opinions?
Readers want opinions and they certainly voice their opinions in the comments section. I would say that these people (myself included) will have
unflattering or flattering views for or against.
I like editorials, and I hope editorials will not vanish from newspapers. There are good and bad things that happen, and these events or people should be written up with an opinion by the reporter.
If I want a sanitary white-washed article, I can go to Wikipedia, and then make an opinion. Personally, as I have said, I would not want newspapers, including the NYTimes to become sanitized.
Man has lived on this planet for a long time and has evolved. During that time, there have been good and bad germs, viruses, and bacteria that have also evolved and killed millions upon millions of people. There have been tyrants, killers of the masses, and just plain bad or good people throughout history. We should read that certain history has been bad, and should be written up as such.
Should history be rewritten with no subjectivity? How does one write about WWI and WWII, or the Holocaust without being objective!
I say no!
Otherwise history will just be like a car manual, and we shall not learn from our past!
6
Seems like using a sledge hammer to swat a fly..
The NYT should stand behind the opinions of their reporters..
13
I am happy to see the guidelines but I worry that it may be too little too late. This is not meant to be a partisan critique but is, I believe, a reflection of many more people than the Times realizes. If one reads these new guidelines, and the reader isn't someone within the NYC or other metropolitan bubble that excludes and ignores larger sentiment outside these locations, the reader, myself included may be thinking "Ok, so you're policy is now that you will do the opposite of everything f you've been doing". While the guidelines are great, they are also what should have been done from the start, and a lack of institutional support and enforcement of this kind of objectivity is what has turned many off of the Times and continues to do so. Many if your staff and reporters have done the polar opposite of these guidelines for so long, and with support from the top either through silence, that most people already assume that the Times stands for everything the guidelines represent. It isn't that these guidelines will keep people from thinking these things. Many already do, and that is not an unfair criticism. The problem isn't clarifying guidelines to keep it from happening. The problem is a broader problem of a tarnished reputation where you they've been happening for quite some time and many will wonder if it is possible to reverse the trend and even if you can enforce the guidelines or have the will to do so.
5
when you state "In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation." -- it seems to me you are asking your reporters to deny the fact that they are human beings with political opinions.
I think the "more realistic" strategy is not to deny that individuals will have opinions about a preferred candidate in an election or similar matter, but rather to either "try" to hire journalists with a diversity of political views and opinions or to "officially" recognize that you are a partisan newspaper and not embrace the "myth" of impartiality.
5
This to me is the very definition of a responsible ruleset. I wish every journalistic site had these kinds of rules in place. Bravo Times.
7
"In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation."
This rule is banning the statement of a truth. The journalists have political views, they endorse candidates. As citizens they should.
Hiding that fact allows anti journalist groups to fill in the void with whatever information they choose.
1
And whatever you do, don't let anybody know how we all really feel or operate.
4
Poor babies can't tweet, can't instagram their lunch, or facebook a friend....oh what oppression these journalists face, how will they go on? Strangely enough, "social media" is the worst thing to happen to communication in a long long time
6
Well done NYT! Every organization should put this much thought into how news/opinions are disseminated
4
The paper could have just issued the statement "Delete your accounts" and saved themselves a lot of time.
5
As a Conservative (but not a registered Republican or a Trumpster), I have to admit, this is surprising and refreshing, and very welcomed.
4
Just saying it won’t really make it happen. Let’s see what happens in real life 6 mos, 1 year or 3 years from now.
2
I don't like the guidelines. It makes me look like a soulless robot on social media. Might as well stop using it altogether.
7
If I worked for the Times I would completely avoid social media given these conditions. It is simply extra layers of labor for an organization that does not pay you to control your entire life. I suspect the NFL can use the same logic, right?
3
If your journalists begin following these guidelines, I may be inclined to pay for a subscription. I am a state employee. I work with people from all walks of life. I am a professional counselor. All of these things play a role on what I do and do not post on social media. I know that I represent my employer, my state, and my ethics as a counselor. I have to edit myself all of the time. By doing so, I engage many more people and have more influence than if I was sharing my own personal biases, opinions and views. I am very glad to see that this newspaper is taking a hard look at how their employees are conducting themselves. Thank you!
22
The policy should be a total and complete ban on all social media for your journalists and editors.
Links to articles and comments aside, we can discern someone's political or cultural biases by all kinds of information your new guidelines do not address. Listing your religion or not listing your religion. Listing your spouse, who he or she works for, what he or she may be 'liking' or linking to. Scrolling through your Facebook friends and family. Seeing pictures of your kids with your bookshelf and all your books in the background.
Now more than ever a journalists' perceived neutrality is so vital that he or she needs to go to great lengths to avoid allowing the public to know anything about his or her persona life.
Trust me; the world will be just fine if Maggie Haberman or Peter Baker deactivates their Facebook account. And I for one will hold both of them in a little higher regard of they do
1
If this is a serious effort to reintroduce some integrity into the field of journalism, it is way overdue, but welcome
7
I am deeply conservative. However, I feel that no one should be banned from social media. Yes, there can and should be consequences. However, most of those consequences will occur by customers and declining circulation. If the Times wants to err, they should err on the side of individual and collective liberty.
10
No one should be banned from social media. Everyone should be intelligent enough to know to AVOID social media. It's a graffiti sewer, and you all are being USED for your data...
2
How refreshingly responsible. Balanced. Well done. Journalism is in danger of dying if there are not more of these kinds of boundaries. Cable News outlets have completely blurred the lines of objectivity. So bravo to The Times.
9
Hiding the partisan extremism of journalists helps how?
As an avid news consumer, I appreciate the opinionated tweets of journalists I follow while simultaneously trusting their reporting to be unbiased and fair. I think I understand the rationale behind these social media policies and sympathize with it to some degree. But these new Times guidelines, along with similar ones promulgated by other media organizations, will likely make journalists' tweets more impersonal and less provocative. Also less fun to read. Too bad.
1