An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
Gannett Staffers Receive Guidelines for Social Media Jim RomeneskoGannett employees have received a memo from CEO Gracia Martore outlining the company's policies on social media: "Never post anything you would not be willing publish or broadcast. Avoid oversimplifying or sensationalizing issues; place your thoughts in context."http://jimromenesko.com/2013/09/10/read-gannetts-social-media-policy-memo/
You're a day late. See the link in the Part 1 thread.
I'm not on this blog every day. Repetition is good anyway.
I'd suggest doing a quick search. But Jim's search feature often does not work. Most Internet sites focusing on varied topics have a working search feature.
Usat Sports launches something else now:http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130910-909496.htmlWhy? Again, bunch of sports guys playing with platforms cause they have the money to. 'For the Win' is the 'fastest growing sports digital property in the US' - really? really??
The social media policy has more of a chilling effect than you realize, especially for journalists. It is basically an infringement of your first amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. In this policy the company says the policy applies, even if you maintain separate social media accounts for work and for you personally. So what this means is if I'm a Red Sox fan and want to post "Yankees suck" after a bad playoff loss on my personal Facebook page, this policy says I can't because it will reflect poorly on the company. It sounds silly, but it's in there-a big fat gray area open to a lot of interpretation. I am among many at my site who took great pains to set up separate Twitter and Facebook accounts for work. They are strictly for business. I removed Gannett as a current employer from my personal Facebook account and state on my profile the opinions expressed there are my own and don't reflect those of anyone else, to protect the company and myself. My privacy settings are set for my friends only and several FB groups I'm in are closed groups for invited members only. Yet corporate says that isn't good enough. Before the flaming starts, I understand that guidelines are needed because some people lack common sense and have posted things they shouldn't on their accounts. Your Twitter feed goes right to your sites website and some people treat it like it's just their BFF's reading it. But this is a little too heavy handed. Part of this policy is directed at you, Jim, by forbidding the dissemination of information outside the company. Obviously it's a move to muzzle your sources. Pretty strange behavior from a media company who's existence depends on the first amendment and whistle blowers. Take some time and really read this thing, it pretty much gives them leave to fire you for anything you post which they deem "reflects badly on the company." Censorship-it's all in reach.
I took offense at this policy and have almost word for word said these same things to some of my co-workers. They don't think it's a big deal. It IS a big deal. I feel as though I can't voice my opinion about anything for fear of getting fired. I too understand guidelines are needed. I realize some people speak before they think. My opinion... this was put in place as an easy means of firing people vs. laying them off
Yes, the policy seems aimed directly at people who comment here -- it's all anonymous but if someone at G found out, any negative comment here would be grounds for dismissal. Also negative comments on Facebook, even something as innocent as acknowledging an error that appeared in print or on a G website. Those reflect badly on the company too. That said, journalists give up some of their First Amendment rights when they're employed -- they shouldn't march in protests, they shouldn't stick a candidate's sign on their lawn, etc. But this policy goes beyond all that and is the mark of a frightened leadership.
Red Sox suck.
Put this on your Facebook page....GO YANKS!
Note: CEO Gracia Martore is a major Red Sox fan. She uses lots of sports analogies in her public remarks, and has a particular interest in the USA Today Sports Media Group.
Disseminating confidential information here was against policies long before the social media policy. The policy doesn't have a lot of new ideas in it, since many things were covered by the Ethics Policy or IT policy.
Jumping from a link here to a local newspaper site and clicking around there some, I came across what used to be called an “infographic,” a “double truck” or “spread.” In print days, these collections of chunks of data in words and pictures organized in a useful and entertaining manner were joys to peruse.But as I was looking at this one on a browser in a tablet, it was neither useful nor entertaining. I could ether see a tenth of it at time at a scale that was readable or I could look at most of it at a scale that was not. Either way while it was still a pretty “graphic,” there was nothing “info” about it.My guess is that the “local information center,” now almost complete bereft of designers, just handed off a static PDF to the web folks and washed its hands of it. So I ask, if the web and tablets are the future of gannett(sic) as corporate tells us, and the technology to make browser and tablet friendly “infographics” is well within reach, why did they get rid of all the designers who could do that? In the early aughts when this technology was beginning, the print designers would have learned it--even on their own time!-- if so encouraged. But back then the internet was corporate’s enemy, as even then it was stealing milk for the CP’s cash cows, so learning internet stuff was tantamount to treason. There was obviously no such encouragement.Back then, gannett could have taken advantage of designers’ spirit of voluntarism and creativity, but now that gannett has declared the internet--and all things digital--BFF(N) they’ve got only a few designers left and none of them have the time, talent or most tellingly, the inclination to help corporate out.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A new controller in Shreveport? Could it be?
Really? Truth or tale?
TRUTH - Can I have an AMEN!
I know I will get hammered for this by the young'uns, but does anyone else long for a time before all this self-indulgent social media b.s. and making news pictures with phones and posting comments from readers who belong in mental institutions? Other than speed and cost efficiency of delivery, how exactly has all this technology improved journalism? I love my iMac and Android phone, but I don't love what they've done to this business or how they've contributed to the dumbing down of the culture. If I have to read or edit one more blog written by a moron, I think I'm going to put my fist through my monitor!
yes, agreed. I'm not quite this old... but I wouldn't mind at all living in Mayberry with Andy and Aunt Bee
I hear you, brother (or sister). Social media has allowed anybody to disseminate news but still doesn't necessarily make one a journalist. Unfortunately, we journalists who have dedicated our lives to this noble profession - to providing the public with unbiased, pertinent and timely information about their communities and world around them - are slowly dying out.What's replacing us? In Gannett, it's 'content creators' and others more concerned with page clicks, gaining 'likes' and followers and building their own 'personal brand.'
Here's your Monday column subject, USA Today media writer Michael Wolff.
How many of your posted on facebook when layoffs were happening? I didn't know anything until I saw someone post something on facebook. With this policy set in place you can't say anything on there. You can't say how they unfairly laid off the guy with cancer. How they laid off all of the older, seasoned reporters and replaced them with kids. Sick of your manager? Sales in a slump and feeling depressed about it? Customer calling you an expletive and are you having a bad day? Bet you can't mention that on facebook.
During Guild negotiations, public discussion of company shortcomings on social media and other news sites is an important part of the process. And, Guild members supposedly can't legally be fired for union activities. So how does this policy affect union members?
Whatever your view of your employer's social-media policy, it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees only that the police won't come knocking at your door for something you say, nothing more. It is a constraint on Congress and by extension, the several states. Your employer, meanwhile, is free to impose whatever restrictions upon speech it wishes, subject only the willingness of employees to accept them.
I'd wouldn't be concerned about being fired over social media. You have a better chance of being laid off.
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe in a reader