LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 26, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     gay marriage     barack obama     robert scheer     chris hedges     ndaa
Most Read

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

Truthdiggers of the Week: 400,000 Canadians Launching the ‘Maple Spring’

I Can't Hear Myself Think

Russia and Exxon Mobil Sign Arctic Oil Deal

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Daddy Goes to Work

Daddy Goes to Work

By Jabari Asim
$12.47

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

No Freedom of Speech for AP Journalists

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Jul 9, 2011
Flickr / ztil301

A deputy managing editor at The Associated Press has issued a formal warning to the company’s employees after two journalists voiced their opinions on New York’s approval of gay marriage and the Casey Anthony murder trial on social media sites.

“These posts undermine the credibility of our colleagues who have been working so hard to assure balanced and unbiased coverage of these issues,” wrote Deputy Managing Editor Tom Kent in an email. For its “bad faith” insistence that reporters should publicly divorce themselves from any and all thoughts and emotions that arise out of their work and behave strictly as instruments of the press—a common view among members of the mainstream media—the remark should have Sartre spinning in his grave. —ARK

Poynter:

From: Kent, Tom?
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 2:57 PM?
To: ?
Subject: Expressing personal opinions on social networks

Colleagues,

In at least two recent cases, we have seen a few postings on social networks by AP staffers expressing personal opinions on issues in the news.

This has happened on the New York Senate vote on gay marriage and on the Casey Anthony trial. These posts undermine the credibility of our colleagues who have been working so hard to assure balanced and unbiased coverage of these issues.

AP’s News Values and Principles state that anyone who works for AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. This point is contained in our social network guidelines as well.

Failure to abide by these rules can lead to disciplinary action.
The vast majority of our tweets on these stories — and on other issues in the news — have been completely in line with our guidelines. They pose no problem at all, and are consistent with the importance of AP staffers being active on social networks.

But social networks, however we may configure our accounts or select our friends, should be considered a public forum. AP staffers should not make postings there that amount to personal opinions on contentious public issues.

Please let your supervisor or me know if you have any questions on this. And thanks.

Tom

Read more

>

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, July 9, 2011 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

the street drivers fear
the echo of the jack boot
the night of broken glass

they do not see
that the soles of patent leather
reflected in the plate glass eyes
of skyscraper executives
have a much more sinister resonance
than any government heel
ever did

July 10, 2011.  D.R. Zing.  Business Heels: General Guidelines and Social Network Policies

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, July 9, 2011 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

Who cares?

The journalists ( if they can be called that, for their lack of true reporting is always lacking substance ) should be giving their opinions of the economic and political wranglings and shenanigans the world over… maybe some honest opinions from the keepers of the narrative and of revision is what can wake more people up… but that is a no no for the hegemony.

My how these people know how to further WMD’s ( Weapons of Mass Distraction ) and sift every last drop of dumbing-down drama from media circus stories like Casey Anthony.

Report this

By Gary B. Larson, July 9, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Our constitutional First Amendment right freedom of speech (and press) protects us from the government preventing us to say or print things. It also protects us from the government telling us what to say or print.

That protection, however, doesn’t apply to a private organization, such as the Associated Press, telling its reporters what to say and write. As a trained journalist (who moved into public relations years ago), I was fully aware of the limits I needed to accept to protect my credibility as an unbiased, fair reporter. As a voter, I could (and did) express my point of view privately. I wasn’t certain then about whether I should express myself privately in letters to my elected representatives; now, I think I could have. On the other hand, because financial contributions can become public information, making them could become a problem for a reporter who’s trying to appear unbiased.

All that said, I eventually became concerned about carrying objectivity to the extreme. Is it fair and honest to treat two (or more) sides on an issue equally when one side (or more) is presenting false or incorrect information (perhaps intentionally) and basing its opinions on that information?

Reporters and the news media have limits in space and time to present all available information, so they must make choices on what to report. Is it fair and honest for reporters and the news media to present information without acknowledging—with public acceptance—that choices, analysis and judgments have been made in reporting certain facts and opinions?

Report this
Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.