So I'm sure some of you heard the story about the CNN Editor who was fired because of something she tweeted... Essentially, her tweet was seen by CNN, and apparently a lot of viewers, as being supportive of a founding Hezbollah cleric from her native Lebanon.
After she tweeted it and there was some backlash, she wrote a blog post (which seemed reasonable and well thought out) to expand on her meaning in her original tweet. However, she was still essentially fired by CNN, though the post says she "resigned"...
I think this should be a wake up call for all of us, and especially those new to social media. Twitter's 140 character limit is just that - a limit. You cannot create a great deal of context within that limit. So, while we should be authentic in our dealings on the social web, we also must be well aware of that fact when we go to post something on our social media outposts...
I know a lot of us have little disclaimers in our Twitter profiles that say something like "These opinions are my own and do not represent my employer." While I think those are great, I don't know that would have saved Ms. Nasr in this situation. This is where CNN was right in that it has a crystal clear social media policy.
Nicole Provonchee over at the Parthenon Publishing Blog stated it well: "The reason behind the tweet apparently did not matter to CNN. Nasr broke CNN’s strict social media policy and the result is the termination of her employment. Among other things, CNN’s social media policy states: “CNN EMPLOYEES ARE TO AVOID TAKING PUBLIC POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES AND PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS ON WHICH WE REPORT.” The policy is clear."
Last thing: there were a heckuva lot of folks who really spoke loudly a few months back when an organization that we all know "censored" a blog post that was written by one of its employees. I guess my question is: should CNN have fired this woman for expressing her views, and if you say yes, isn't this is the same thing (i.e. her expressing her views and having consequences from them) as what happened with the aforementioned association and the blog post heard 'round the association social media world? Or is it very different since in this situation, the actual post/words are not being removed from anything, but rather utilized to illustrate an important point? Would love your feedback!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
The aforementioned association does NOT have a policy that says "Our employees are not to take public opinions with which influential members or staff disagree." If they did, then the post would have justifiably been removed. Of course, if they did, they'd lose me as a member!
Good point. After posting, I actually rethought the premise of that last question since I don't know that it is the same thing. Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for the mention of my blog post! It is a complex subject certainly, and one that will inevitably change as social media continues to evolve. I like your statement about the 140 character limit being just that - a limit. People complain about being able to express emotion in emails... having only 140 characters poses even more of a challenge! Great point!
Post a Comment