NT
The BBC has largely dug this hole for itself by encouraging correspondents to provide NON-STOP ANALYSIS all the time, day in, day out, on social media, instead of doing what senior broadcasters do best which is to provide a careful, considered analysis. The written word can be taken out of context, it hangs around and can haunt you. Broadcasting is a medium that provides context and individual lines don't live long in the memory.
Here's a case in point (I'm not asking anyone to start discussing this, it's just an example):
If you're Nick Robinson, you're probably thinking that "wartime leader" is a vivid, pithy line. It's a good one for a telly package.
On social, particularly out of context, and possibly depending on your already-formed views of Johnson/Robinson, it could look like an admiring comment that would be inappropriate for a senior broadcaster.
(Again, I'm not asking for this to be discussed, I'm merely using it as an example - there are countless more like it.)
Plus you now have the issue of "client journalism" - political corrs simply being used to disseminate attack lines on social, particularly those from anonymous sources. Which all goes back to the editors' demands for NON-STOP ANALYSIS.
They're human, they can't do everything, and demanding they pump this stuff out on social all the time as well as broadcasting is killing the reputation of many.
While many of these guidelines are common sense, I'd hoped - particularly with Richard Sambrook behind it - that these guidelines would address how the BBC uses Twitter, rather than setting staff up to fail. Instead, they seem to have dodged the issue. We'll be back here in six months' time, if not sooner.
A big part of the problem is that people take a single tweet from somebody like Laura K which simply reports, accurately, what somebody has said and use that to launch a pile on about supposed bias while ignoring the other tweets from her reporting what others with opposing views have said.
The BBC has largely dug this hole for itself by encouraging correspondents to provide NON-STOP ANALYSIS all the time, day in, day out, on social media, instead of doing what senior broadcasters do best which is to provide a careful, considered analysis. The written word can be taken out of context, it hangs around and can haunt you. Broadcasting is a medium that provides context and individual lines don't live long in the memory.
Here's a case in point (I'm not asking anyone to start discussing this, it's just an example):
The wartime leader is back. Brits want to "fight & defeat the virus" not "throw in the sponge" he says. The PM calls for “collective forbearance, common sense & willingness to make sacrifices” in the battle against coronavirus & warns that tougher measures could be introduced pic.twitter.com/5cci63sbVw
— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) September 30, 2020
If you're Nick Robinson, you're probably thinking that "wartime leader" is a vivid, pithy line. It's a good one for a telly package.
On social, particularly out of context, and possibly depending on your already-formed views of Johnson/Robinson, it could look like an admiring comment that would be inappropriate for a senior broadcaster.
(Again, I'm not asking for this to be discussed, I'm merely using it as an example - there are countless more like it.)
Plus you now have the issue of "client journalism" - political corrs simply being used to disseminate attack lines on social, particularly those from anonymous sources. Which all goes back to the editors' demands for NON-STOP ANALYSIS.
They're human, they can't do everything, and demanding they pump this stuff out on social all the time as well as broadcasting is killing the reputation of many.
While many of these guidelines are common sense, I'd hoped - particularly with Richard Sambrook behind it - that these guidelines would address how the BBC uses Twitter, rather than setting staff up to fail. Instead, they seem to have dodged the issue. We'll be back here in six months' time, if not sooner.