http://www.facebook.com/about/subscribe.

At the bottom of that page you’ll see advice about what your subscribers see.

How to share

So far, so good. When you follow that link you’ll get the well-watched clip that explains the new inline audience selector. When you post something on Facebook you choose to post to public, friends or private lists. Simple? So open up to subscribers?

I don’t think having subscribers is a bad thing! But here is a big warning: It’s not just what you consider public with each post you make, but every public action on Facebook is now forwarded to anyone who subscribes to you.

• Comments on other public posts whether by friends or pages will be shared with your subscribers. If your friend has posted something racy, you now need to consider whether it’s worth a comment because it will be shared with subscribers.
• You can Like a new page and have it hidden from subscribes only if you do the following: Go to your timeline> go the small ‘about’ link just below your profile photo> go to ABOUT next to your profile name> go to the Likes option (all your liked pages will show up) > go to the edit button at the top right > Next to each group of favourites or likes you’ll see an audience selector. Here you choose to make Likes only visible to friends. Then save.
• Be mindful that even though you can hide the pages you like, any comments on that page (which by default are public) will be included in the ticker of your subscribers.

Facebook isn’t doing anything sneaky here. Those comments you made on the public Facebook page were technically there for all to see but only if someone happened to come across them. Your friends were notified in their ticker when you commented on the page, but that was about it.

The above advice is based on a series of experiments with people who were happy to be subscribers and not friends, and report back to me about what they saw and were able to follow. If any of this page is wrong, or you have more advice, please, please add a comment or drop me a note. Let’s help understand the whole process together.

Subscribe at
http://www.facebook.com/johnkerrison

The use of social media by journalists remains a thorn in the side for many newsroom executives who are yet to fully understand the reach and cultural shift that comes with being in a community on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Many newsrooms have introduced social media guidelines but many more have not!

The ABC in Australia sums up its social media policy in four points:
Do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute.
Do not undermine your effectiveness at work.
Do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views.
Do not disclose confidential information obtained through work.

It’s not a bad list, but obviously so much of it is open to interpretation. Is breaking news on Twitter undermining a reporter’s effectiveness at work? It depends whether Twitter is considered an extension of the reporter’s channels?

A journalist with a strong social media presence often has audiences– or becomes part of communities– that can

Picture: Keiyac on Flickr

swell to many thousands. There’s a relationship of trust and openness that forms on Twitter and Facebook, but as far as many newsrooms are concerned, the reporter answers only to the organisation. The newsroom needs to control content in order to measure it and sell it.

Social media isn’t the enemy. Smart online newsrooms have used Facebook in particular to drive audiences to mass-media publications and broadcasts. That’s the smart way to treat social media.
It’s also crucial to acknowledge that many stories now depend on the contribution of communities online via tips, photos and the sharing of documents.
Social Media guidelines in newsrooms can take many shapes and sizes, and they’re a good way to help journalists understand how to use the platforms to maximum effect– but they can’t be expected to shut off the relationship journalists have with the online community.

A journalist considers his or her treatment of sources and integrity in reporting as intrinsic value that can be taken from employer to employer; a presence in social media and an active role in Twitter and Facebook should now be considered just as valuable.

It was reported that ACT union official Kim Sattler posted on a Facebook Page about Tony Abbott just hours before the Aboriginal tent embassy protest outside the Lobby restaurant. She wrote, “typical bar room brawler who starts a fight and then disappears like a coward when it is in full swing – then brags about his role afterwards”.  After the Prime Minister formally outed Kim Sattler as the go-between for the PM’s office and the tent embassy, Sattler deleted her Facebook Page and her Twitter account? Why?

If your social media presence does not support your principled position on issues important to your public persona, then delete it BEFORE there’s a crisis. Kim Sattler is an official with Unions ACT. I don’t think anyone’s going to be overly shocked that she’s no fan of Tony Abbott. What’s not clear in the media coverage is whether these comments were on a Facebook ‘Page’ Sattler was administrating or just a ‘Profile’. It sounds less obtrusive if the media calls it a ‘Page’ but it could have been a personal profile. I can no longer find either on the Facebook platform.

Five quick points about a personal plan.

• Never post or tweet something you don’t really believe or aren’t willing to defend.
• Be willing to enter twitter conversation or debate about your views. It reflects someone open to engagement on Social Media.
• Be really clear whether your facebook is for private or public use. There are ways to manage Facebook to minimise risks (see below).
• Consider a dedicated Page if you want a public presence on the Facebook platform.
• If you want to retract something you’ve said in social media, do it quickly and with transparency. If you delete a tweet or post that has already been made public, add another tweet or post to explain your position. Deleting an account or going silent is a bad look.

Some tips for managing your own plan and privacy.

Facebook is such a great social media platform for keeping in touch with friends and family but it’s also a very powerful tool for newsrooms trying to get to the bottom of stories about people. Check your profile’s security features again. Make sure nothing on your profile is automatically public. Be careful commenting on other people posts, particularly if their posts are public because adding your comments puts them in the public domain. The same goes for comments on pages. How many friends do you have? If you have hundreds of friends, don’t go posting about your job being crap.

Facebook’s tools.

Messages: this is the most private way of communicating on Facebook. It’s a closed system which works very similar to email.
If you have not investigated lists and you have any kind of pubic persona, you’re not using Facebook wisely.
Lists: Take the time to set up an inner circle list of the 15 people you trust most. If you have more than 15 people on that list, it’s not your inner circle. This is the list you can use to post inner thoughts and frustrations. Now consider a close mates list. This, again, should be people you know well and trust. Now each time you post, go to the audience drop down marker on the right and choose whether all your friends get the post of just your close mates or inner circle.
Another security option is hiding your friends list from other people, so that people outside your network are unable to see who you mix with.
Here’s a link to the new feature for public people called Subscribe. I’m not a fan at this point in time. If you want a public space in Facebook, the Page option is a good one.

Twitter.

Every time you tweet, imagine that tweet on the side of the Harbour Bridge for all to see; I mean it: every. single. tweet. on. the. bridge. Sure, there are hundreds of thousands of tweets about your industry or sector being shared every day, but remember that your tweets never go away. So if a reporter or competitor wants to know what you think about a certain issue, they can search your tweets.

Twitter should be fun and personal, but again, make sure you’re willing to stand behind the sentiments of any particular tweet.

Executive Summary.

This research reviews theory on engagement and corporate reputation, as well as best-practice social media guidelines, to deliver four themes for rules that govern social media use.

The research asks two questions of relevance to organizational communications; how are journalists using social media in ways that can affect the reputation of the employing organization; and what guideline, policy or training can help moderate that behaviour.

The report advances the communication and literature review completed in August 2009 (Kerrison, 2009). The original proposal called for a wide scope including research into what drivers in social media led audiences to watch television news. It was originally proposed that the paper look at agenda setting and what news values existed in both old and new media. However, it was decided that the focus of this report should be narrowed substantially. This paper will look at expectations of users in the social media environment and what guidelines will help a journalist engage with social media without jeopardising the organization’s reputation.

The concept of listening and engaging on new media platforms as argued by Kate Crawford (2009) is central to the literature review, as is the need to recognise that social media participants expect a level of control and democracy in the online conversations (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2004).

This report extrapolates from theory and looks at practice to advance four themes for newsroom social media policy or training:

Understand social media and respect its difference from mass media.

This heading is an umbrella for rules about how to engage on social media.

Guidelines must acknowledge that online transactions are more like conversation and very different to traditional media – television and newspapers.

In this theme, rules about social media use deal with how material is shared and discussed by participants.

Demand that staff employ authenticity with every contribution in all social media.

This category of guidelines includes how to write for social media platforms. Guidance in this area will help journalists to be respectful and truthful when in a social media conversation, rather than dominant or flippant.

Build rules around current employment expectations and codes of ethics.

The report reveals that best-practice in guidelines for social media use is often written to reflect current staff expectations and norms, including the adherence to codes of ethics and employment contracts.

Encourage a culture of listening online rather than broadcasting.

This umbrella of rules for social media use includes how to write in a conversational way that meets expectations of the online community.

The value of re-posting or relaying messages back to participants is also a common finding in the theory and practice.

Introduction.

The study of how journalists engage in social media, while constrained by a traditional media employer, is new.  It was not easy, despite a relatively long period of searching, to find academic writing that critically analyses the complex communication matrix: how does a newsroom employer engaging on social media also engage with an employee who happens to be running a newsroom?

That said, the literature review does critically review theory on engagement, social media as a communications trend and tool, and organizational reputation. One article reviewed in more detail looks at the role of listening in social communications and the benefits of a two-way communication style for organisations or employers using social media. (Crawford, 2009)

Under the heading ‘best practice’ this report takes four current social media guidelines and looks at how their elements are backed or challenged by the theories (BBC Online editorial guidelines, n.d.); (IOC Blogging Guidelines, 2008);(Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d.); (Williams, n.d.). This paper will also look at examples of social media policies that have come under fire for being too controlling. (Poniewozik, 2009).

The conclusion brings together the theory and practice to advance the four themes for social media guidelines or training.

What this research does NOT do is important. This research does not delve deeply into the future of the profession of journalism; it does not offer quantifiable data to suggest engagement in social media improves audience take up of mainstream media; and it does not look at length at the role of social media as a tool to engage with employees within the organization. There is furtive ground in those areas for more research. This paper’s scope is the merit of social media policies, and how they need to be relevant to the way journalists are engaging in the social media environment.

Literature Review.

An attempt to define social media is a vital starting point for this research paper. The popular Mashable website (Hopkins, 2008) defines social media by the traits that make it different to broadcast media’s business model: “Social media are platforms for interaction and relationships, not content and ads” (Hopkins, 2008). Ironically, the website crucially lists a number of these platforms including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn which generate revenue from targeted ads.  Hopkins does, however, emphasise interactions and relationships. Understanding social media is also helped by comparing it with mass media– a term associated with large groups of faceless consumers or “publics” that become “mere media markets” (Wright Mills, 2004, p. 75). It’s argued by Van Dijk (2006) that the interactive nature of social media means it no longer falls into the mass media category. He goes as far as calling social media platforms revolutionary: “The birth of integrated networks implies the combination of allocution, consultation, registration and conversation in a single medium. This would make such a medium important enough in social communication to enable us to speak of a communication revolution.” (van Dijk, 2006, p. 12) Revolutionary? Maybe– but certainly very different to mass media. This paper will propose a definition of Social Media this way: a series of networks allowing for digital interaction based on relationships, conversations and community.

Theorists have looked at mass media in ways that again point out fundamental diffences to social media. Morris and Ogan (2004, p. 136) say the one-way broadcaster-to-public message system does not help understand social media. The authors don’t make direct reference to popular online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, but do talk about the challenge of understanding these communication trends from a historical context:

“The major constraints in doing mass communication research into the Internet, however, has been theoretical. In searching for theories to apply to group software systems, researchers … have recognised that communication studies needed new theoretical models … With new technologies, the line between various contexts begins to blur, and it is unclear that models based on mass-media or face-to-face contexts are adequate” (Morris & Ogan, 2004, p. 136)

If first generation mass media theory is of limited help, then engagement theory is crucial.  A number of writers argue that the intimacy and conversational style of communication in social media require participants to engage rather than send one-way messages. Crawford (2009, p. 525) argues that listening and responding using social media, garners respect and credibility: “As a metaphor, listening is useful; it captures some of the characteristics of the ongoing process of receptivity that mark much online engagement.” (Crawford, 2009, p. 525).  Crawford says that many organisations – and political parties are cited (2009, p. 527) – fail to understand the advantages of actually listening to what participants are doing online. “The concepts of listening involves the more dynamic process of online attention, and suggests that is an embedded part of networked engagement – a necessary corollary to having a voice.” (Crawford, 2009, p. 527) Part of listening is using the platforms to ask participants questions and get feedback about products and services. This paper makes several references to Crawford’s work when discussing best practice in written social media policies for journalists because social media platforms demand a listening approach.

Work by Jenkins and Thorburn (2004, p. 12) investigates the role new media is having on journalism generally. Again, the differences highlighted are useful in understanding how the so-called new media is changing audience behaviours. Understanding social media will help direct any kind of employee social media policy. Jenkins and Thorburn (2004) describe a power shift at the hands of social media; the people who want to engage with public affairs are now their own broadcasters:

“Gil Scott Heron’s song ‘Will the revolution be televised?’ The answer, in 1968, was clearly ‘No.’ A narrow pipeline controlled by corporate media was unlikely to transmit dissenting ideas or images … But in 2003, if we ask whether the revolution will be digitised, the answer is ‘Yes.’ The web’s low barriers to entry ensure greater access than ever before to innovative, even revolutionary ideas.” (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2004, p. 12)

If the hugely engaged and interactive nature of social media defines how to use it, then the next area of literature review is the value of this level of engagement on organizational reputation.

Reporters who engage with social media are broadcasting messages either as posts or tweets that have a potential impact on an organisation’s reputation. Watson and Kitchen (2008, p. 123) link reputation to communication activities and feedback mechanisims. To extrapolate from this theory is to find the motivation for a news organisation to engage with reporters in the Social Media space—their social media contribution can have an effect on reputation.

Watson and Kitchen (2008, p. 134) outline five principles for positive organisational reputation: be visible, be distincitive, be authentic, be transparent, be consistent. There is an undeniable connection with the expectations of good corporate reputation and the expectations of behaviours on social media, particularly with the need to be authentic and transparent.

Cornelissen (2005, p. 56) takes a similar view to Watson and Kitchen: reputation is “communication, products and services, and employee behaviour”.

This paper will now look at practical examples of social media policies for journalists. What works, what doesn’t and what can backfire.

Emerging criteria and best practice in social media guidelines.

The social media policies of four major organisations provide a strong opportunity to analyse how businesses are trying to control or guide employee use of social media. The reports reviewed will be a model Twitter strategy for UK governmental departments (Williams, n.d.), an editorial guide for BBC staff (BBC Online editorial guidelines, n.d.), the blogging guide of International Olympic Committee (IOC Blogging Guidelines, 2008), and the US Air Force new media guide (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d.).  These guidelines were chosen as best practice based on the theory discussion in the literature review. They also have strengths and weaknesses, and help build the paper’s four themes for social media guides.

UK Government department draft Twitter guide.

This undated twenty-page document was produced as a draft social media policy with a focus on one platform: the social media microblogging site “Twitter”. It is far reaching in many of its suggestions and encourages engagement with social media. Its introduction (Williams, n.d., p. 1) outlines the purpose of the document: It explains why employees should use Twitter, how the risks to the reputation will be contained, how they’ll use the channel, and how they’ll promote the use of the channel. The guide, from the outset, uses pro-active language about social media.

The guide makes a number of references to authenticity in social media engagement, and backs up the proffered theme: demand that staff employ authenticity with every contribution in all social media. On its first page the need for authenticity is in its objectives: “Provide an informal, ‘human’ voice of the organisation to promote comprehension of and engagement with our corporate

messages.” (Williams, n.d., p. 1). The document recognises the demands of the Twitter community by warning against using the social media platform as a way of broadcasting. “The tone of our Twitter channel must therefore be informal spoken English, human-edited, and written for the channel.” (Williams, n.d., p. 5)

The paper crucially makes reference to potential risks for a government department online, but insists guidelines around this should be light. The paper suggests Tweets are nominated for approval by the digital media team. This point is salient for investigation into a social media policy for journalists because most reporters get their content or stories they produce for mass media employers vetted before publication. Would vetting be problematic for journalists using social media to engage real-time? Could this guide build rules around current employment expectations and codes of ethics? The BBC online guide helps answer this with best practice on reputation management which gives journalists considerable leverage to screen their own social media contributions.

BBC online editorial guidelines.

The BBC’s social media policy makes no attempt to stop employees from blogging and even acknowledges that this can enhance the organisation’s reputation (BBC Online editorial guidelines, n.d.). The document says bloggers should tell the organisation of any potential conflicts of interests, particularly for editorial staff.

The site encourages staff to talk about BBC content in personal blogs, but also demands disclosure. “If a blog makes it clear that the author works for the BBC, it should include a simple and visible disclaimer such as ‘these are my personal views and not those of the BBC’.” (BBC Online editorial guidelines, n.d.).

These expressions of trust in staff don’t come without some warning about the need not to publish confidential work secrets, and the need for content to be respectful and lawful. The liberty it offers journalists using social media platforms could be seen to pose risks to the organisation’s reputation. There was no evidence immediately available of any major communications crisis stemming from a blog or social media posting by a BBC employee. This paper argues that the BBC’s policy is also practical, as it would be resource intensive to review all employee social media content before every contribution or post.

One way of countering fears of potential risk to organisational reputation in the BBC model is to call on codified expectations in an employee’s contract. This paper argues that news organisations can call on a reporter’s inherent responsibility to act ethically.  The Australian Journalist code of ethics is a valuable tool for guidance on what’s expected of reporters: “Alliance members engaged in journalism commit themselves to honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others.” (Media Alliance code of ethics, n.d.) This code already gives boundaries to the expectations of journalists engaging in social media. The BBC’s guide gives reporters liberties that build rules around current employment expectations and codes of ethics.

Similar freedoms are granted to bloggers attending the Olympic Games, but more emphasis is given to protecting content which has rights attached to it.

IOC Blogging guidelines.

The International Olympic Committee describes blogging as “a legitimate form of personal expression and not as a form of journalism.” (IOC Blogging Guidelines, 2008). The guide goes on to say this allows the IOC to differentiate between content only available to rights-holders approved to broadcast the games. The rules understand social media and respect its differences from mass media. Where the BBC was best practice for proactively encouraging employees to make BBC references in social media, the IOC makes more emphasis about what is not allowed. It says: “blogs of accredited persons should take the form of a diary or journal and, in any event, should not contain any interviews with … other accredited person.” (IOC Blogging Guidelines, 2008).

Blogs by staff in IOC games zones should not include still pictures, the Olympic logo or rings must not be used in any way to suggest the blog is endorsed, and no advertising should be visible on a blog with Olympic content. Despite the strict rules, the IOC gives legitimacy to blogs by adding: “Accredited persons posting Olympic content … are encouraged to ‘link’ their blogs to various official Olympic websites.” (IOC Blogging Guidelines, 2008).

The IOC guide is a fine example – if not best practice – when it comes to the social media theory of listening and engaging with feedback (Crawford, 2009), and it does see merit in blogs. It also details restrictions in a relatively simple document not lasting more than three pages.

The more complex set of guidelines about rights materials has some value when looking at social media policies for news organisations. How should breaking news be handled by a journalist using social media? What risks are there that competing media will use online posts and blogs to steal content? These important questions are dealt with in this paper by the provision of the four themes to social media guides.

US Air Force new media guide.

The guide for Airmen in the US Navy was prepared by the service’s public affairs division (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d.). It’s best practice because it encourages the Air Force to engage with staff so that they know the policies for participating in social media. It recommends training on how to use new media platforms effectively: “It is up to the Public Affairs professionals at each level to teach and enforce Air Force new media policy for training every Airman on the proper use and techniques for engaging in new media.” (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d., p. 7).

The social media guide acknowledges that the Air Force is a high security environment for information—but doesn’t discourage staff from online activity. The guide makes several references to Air Force staff needing to know exactly what’s expected of them because they communicate as airmen “24 hours a day, 365 days a year” (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d., p. 7).  This reference to all social media engagement being a potential reflection on the organisation is useful for journalists on social media. Journalists should be made aware that—like Airmen– personal time and professional time blur when using social media platforms. Personal views will reflect on professional reputations. This feature of the U.S. Air Force guide can be grouped in two ways: build rules around current employment and codes of ethics; and encourage a culture of listening rather than broadcasting.

The Air Force site offers assistance to airmen using social media this way: “If Airmen state they are not representing the Air Force, other audiences may not interpret the information that way. Airmen, by the nature of the business, are always on the record.” (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d., p. 8).

The Air Force policy supports Crawford (2009, p. 527) arguments about listening and engaging rather than one way broadcasting. It encourages Airmen to be conversational but to never be offensive or racist, and it describes blogging as a medium of self-expression.

Social media guides as an emerging staff policy.

As already discussed, many facets of best-practice social media guides for staff are relevant to a newsroom with journalists engaging in social media, but not all newsrooms have survived without criticism of attempts to control reporter activity online. Again, the four themes are all successfully applied in this example of a guide with flaws.  The Washington post this year generated criticism for releasing a social media policy perceived as draconian (Poniewozik, 2009).  The Washington Post dictated that journalists use social media with extreme caution: “Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility”(Poniewozik, 2009). The warning seems innocuous on the surface but blog writer James Poniewozik (2009) is highly critical of the newspaper’s approach. He says the guidelines make the publication faceless and make the journalists look like idiots. He argues that it’s a fallacy to pretend journalists don’t have opinions: “these common-sense guidelines should be left to just that: common sense– without which, why would you have a job at the Post in the first place?” (Poniewozik, 2009). His remarks back up this paper’s previous assertion that a proposed social media guideline should be written in tandem with current expectations such as the journalist code of ethics.

The guidelines were reactive and only came about after senior editor Raju Narisetti posted tweets which the newspaper deemed unacceptable (Alexander, 2009).  One read: “We can incur all sorts of federal deficits for wars and what not, but we have to promise not to increase it by $1 for healthcare reform? Sad.”(Alexander, 2009). The retelling of this tweet is sourced from the newspaper’s own ombudsman blog which proudly states that Mr Narisetti closed his Twitter account.

Again, there’s a theme here about the need to understand social media and respect its differences from mass media.

Blogger James Poniewozik (2009) when critical of the Washington Post says: “If your work is fair, sharing your beliefs does not make it less so” (Poniewozik, 2009).

The Washington Post debate adds weight to this paper’s assertion that newsroom management needs to engage with journalists using social media with urgency in order to reduce confusion about what is and isn’t deemed appropriate.

Case analysis.

The following case study looks at how one reporter is using social media in a deeply engaged and concerted way. This case study helps show – in practice – why newsrooms need to be guiding or training journalists on threats and opportunities.

Amy Wood: fully engaged and ready to listen.

This case study involves a model of engagement with social media that plays by the medium’s rules. It adopts the crucial elements of listening and engaging which are so important to having relationships in social media (Crawford, 2009, p. 529). American television anchor Amy Wood has developed a reputation for being an effective user of social media (Potter, 2009) and openly talking to participants about her work and some of her personal life. It’s unclear whether this work is regulated by her employer WSPA TV Channel Seven.

The Amy Wood case study is challenging for newsroom policy because she regularly takes comments from online spaces and broadcasts them in a ‘what you’re saying’ segment in her nightly TV news (Potter, 2009). She makes clear, though, that she only broadcasts harmless opinion from social media on her news program. Amy Wood believes there are benefits for the organisation’s reputation because social media allows her to connect with audiences: “It is my first priority. My greatest concern has to be my viewers. By virtue of sending out alerts all day and all night, I am completely engaged in news stories.” (Potter, 2009)

Amy Wood says her preferred channel is Facebook (Wood, Amy Wood Facebook Fan Page, n.d.). Here she regularly comments on news stories from her TV channel and other sources. She replies to nearly every comment posted on the page.

Some examples of current posts include:

“8 US troops die in attack on outpost in Afghanistan http://ow.ly/sCDq” (Wood, Amy Wood Facebook Fan Page, n.d.). This post is sent to her Facebook page via Twitter, another social media platform and, interestingly, the link is to a Washington Post article – not her own TV news channel.

The interaction allows for people to comment on what Wood’s doing at any time, and Wood often leaves posts of a more personal nature:

“http://ping.fm/p/ZDrll – Volleyball time!” (Wood, Amy Wood Facebook Fan Page, n.d.). A Facebook fan comments below Wood’s post to say he plays volleyball too. Wood’s 24 hour a day social media participation is an example of the sentiment expressed by the U.S Air Force media guide that says Airmen are reflections of the organisation at all times (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d.).

Wood’s other preferred social media platform is Twitter (Wood, tvamy, 2009). She has made literally thousands of tweets to her 8000 fans. She uses the site to respond to viewers, thank them for watching, and credit news tips to many of them. Her posts happen to fall within a rule mentioned in the Twitter guide for UK Departments (Williams, n.d., p. 1) which calls for a human voice for corporate messages. In Wood’s case, the messages are personal by nature and not strictly related to corporate messages.

How the four themes are evidenced in this case study of social media use:

* Understanding social media and respect its differences from Mass Media:

Amy Wood understands the different uses for Mass media and social media. She does, however, persist with including online comments in her nightly news bulletin. This should be reviewed for effectiveness. Is it necessary? Do audiences appreciate it?

* Build rules around current employment expectations and codes of ethics:

Amy Wood has the freedom to link any media news item on social networking that helps generate conversation about news, but should she be encouraged to link to reliable programs or news items from within her own newsroom?

*Demand that staff employ authenticity in every contribution in all social media:

Amy Wood is authentic and genuine when posting comments or blogs. This is valuable to her news credibility.

* Encourage a culture of listening – not broadcasting:

Amy Wood posts news items onto her Facebook site that may have been published or broadcast elsewhere, but regularly comments and converses with social media participants about that content.

Discussion and conclusion.

In conclusion, we see a series of complex uses of social media guides in both practice and in the theory of engagement and reputation.

This paper has proffered four themes or areas that can encapsulate an almost infinite number of individual rules for journalists engaging in social media conversations.

Understand social media and respect its difference from mass media

Guidelines should encourage conversation and listening in social media platforms. The level of participation means the audience is active not passive. Crawford(2009) referred to in the literature review, goes into detail about expectations by audiences in social media. Writing about politicians, Crawford argued “If they fail to respond actively, they will lose followers, and run the risk of alienating the very people they are seeking to reach.” (Crawford, 2009, p. 530)

All four of the existing guidelines (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d.); (BBC Online editorial guidelines, n.d.); (IOC Blogging Guidelines, 2008); (Williams, n.d.) presented a case of understanding the interactivity in social media.

Rules such as ‘remain conversational’, and ‘write with the tone and language expected of the relevant platform’ fit within this theme.

Demand that staff employ authenticity with every contribution in all social media.

The Wood case study gives us many examples of the value of doing this. Her credibility is witnessed in her honest, informal tweets but the real value of this is highlighted by reputation theory(Cornelissen, 2005)(Jenkins & Thorburn, 2004). There is actually a good reason for being authentic in social media—it discourages rude or harassing language, and reduces the risk of reputational harm to the organisation.

A rule such as: ‘remember that you and your organisation are judged by your honesty and integrity online’ would apply here.

Much of the BBC media guide has rules calling for authenticity and honesty in social media, including: “If a staff member is offered payment to produce a blog for a third party this could constitute a conflict of interest and must be discussed with their line manager.” (BBC Online editorial guidelines, n.d.)

Build rules around current employment expectations and codes of ethics.

Social media guidelines don’t have to re-invent the wheel. The U.S. Air Force guide (Clavette, Faggard, Bove, & Fordham, n.d.), considered best practice, was very upfront about encouraging Airmen to use social media while also reminding them of the need not to reveal any classified information on the web.

While journalists should be allowed to post, blog or tweet freely, rules can mirror the journalists’ code of ethics (Media Alliance code of ethics, n.d.) which outlines disclosure, respect and integrity.

A rule such as ‘don’t take part in any form of social media that will bring you or your organisation into disrepute’ fits within this umbrella. The nature and definition of disrepute would need further clarification by the newsroom or reference to employment contracts.

Encourage a culture of listening – rather than broadcasting.

The Mashable website (Hopkins, 2008) describes social media as being about interactions and relationships. It’s the

picture: Dieseldemon via Flickr

interconnectedness of the interactions and relationships which undermines mass communication theory which promotes concepts of broadcasters and faceless publics (Wright Mills, 2004, p. 75).

Guidelines such as ‘reply to posts in a way that shows genuine interest’ or ‘spend time just watching feeds and comments rather than needing to push or further a news story’ help propagate a culture of listening online.

Wood (Wood, Amy Wood Facebook Fan Page, n.d.) online is an effective example of this strategy. Her comments on both Facebook and Twitter have a friendly, interested tone.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Peter Simmons, Com 515 coordinator, for his guidance and advice about the structure of this report. He helped me take a complex area of research and narrow its focus.

I am grateful to my employer, TCN Channel Nine, which allowed me time off to complete the research.

Credit must also go to my family who read the drafts of this report and gave me feedback about content that may have been irrelevant.

Bibliography

Alexander, A. (2009). Post editor ends Tweets as new guidelines are issued. Retrieved October 2, 2009 from Washington Post Ombudsman Blog: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2009/09/post_editor_ends_tweets_as_new.html

BBC Online editorial guidelines. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2009 from BBC Online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/onguide/interacting/index.shtml

Clavette, L., Faggard, D., Bove, P., & Fordham, J. (n.d.). New Media and the Airforce. Airforce public affairs.

Cornelissen, J. (2005). Stakeholders, identity and reputation. In Corporate Communications: theory and practice. London: Sage.

Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: disciplines of listening in Social Media. Continuum , 23 (4), 525-535.

Hopkins, M. (2008). Just what is Social Media, exactly. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from Mashable: the social media guide: http://mashable.com/2008/11/18/social-media-defined/

(2008). IOC Blogging Guidelines. International Olympic Committee, Lausanne.

Jenkins, H., & Thorburn, D. (2004). Democracy and new media. Boston: MIT.

Kerrison, J. (2009). Communication Proposal and Literature Reivew. Charles Sturt University. Produced for COM515.

Media Alliance code of ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2009 from Alliance Online: http://www.alliance.org.au/media_alliance_code_of_ethics/

Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (2004). The internet as mass medium. In D. McQuail (Ed.), McQuail’s reader in Mass Communications (pp. 134-145). London: Sage.

Poniewozik, J. (2009). The Washington Post slaps the Twitter handcuffs on its staff. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from Time.com: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/09/29/the-washington-post-slaps-the-twitter-handcuffs-on-its-staff/

Potter, D. (2009). How to be an interactive journalist. Retrieved September 28, 2009 from Newslab: http://www.newslab.org/2009/09/25/how-to-be-an-interactive-journalist/

van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society: social aspects of new media. London: Sage.

Watson, T., & Kitchen, P. (2008). Corporate communication: reputation in action. (T. Melewar, Ed.) Oxford: Routledge.

Williams, N. (n.d.). Twitter strategy for government departments. UK Cabinet Office.

Wood, A. (n.d.). Amy Wood Facebook Fan Page. Retrieved September 12, 2009 from Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AmyWood?ref=ts

Wood, A. (2009). tvamy. Retrieved September 12, 2009 from Twitter: http://twitter.com/tvamy

Wright Mills, C. (2004). The mass society. In D. McQuail (Ed.), McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory (pp. 73-79). London: Sage.

Audioboo lets reporter upload a tweet of ‘sound’ particularly quickly and easily. Even better… if you attach a simple Belkin Tunetalk microphone to an Ipod or Iphone 3GS with an application such as Blue Fire audio recorder.
This is the quality of the audio on the IPhone 3gs

.

The Belkin doesn’t work on the IPhone 4 or 4s … but an external microphone via an adapter into the top jack will deliver amazing video and audio.
Yep, video is now really in the hands of anybody.
Check out this podcaster’s test of the Iphone 4s. He used a jack adapter that you’d find here.

And lastly Bambuser.
Head to my Facebook Page at www.facebook.com/meetjohnkerrisonto see a very short clip filmed from my smart phone and sent live to the page (it’s rough around the edges).It simply requires that the ‘broadcaster’ sign up to the website, then load the application onto the smart phone.
There are tips for setting up the shared protocols to send the clip to a Facebook Page. And at this point, there are still no ads.

More about Bambuser here.

Feature picture credit: Kheel Centre via Flickr.