After a controversial guest article was posted on The Washington Post that suggested "homosexuality was a mental health issue" groups took to Twitter to complain and voice opinions against the Post for publishing the article. A staff member tried to defend the article being published that seemed to only fuel the fire. Staffers have been sent a memo asking them not to engage critics on Twitter on behalf of the Post. They have been told not to use their personal accounts or any Post-branded accounts to answer critics.
The article goes on to discuss whether or not the Post should completely block it's journalists from holding a dialogue with readers via Twitter in a time when traditional journalists are being asked to embrace social media. I think the Post does need to limit who has access to responding on their social media but blocking their journalist from engaging in a conversation is not a smart idea.
Mashable article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As a supervisor and having served in various managerial positions, I can understand the need to curtail some renegade defenses of the company. However, trying to restrict what an employee might say on their own time/accounts/blogs is reaching too far. Designate a person or two to handle issues on social media. Seriously, do it. Don't sit around thinking you should do it. Find an articulate and savvy wordsmith who understands your message, and put them in charge of answering postings.
But, don't even start to tell employees what they should or shouldn't do with regard to their own blogs. (I mean, if they insist on being stupid and running the company into the ground, then you can fire them; let them make that decision on their own!) Companies shouldn't try restrict free speech. But, it is tempting.
I agree with what Maureen says. There definitely should be someone who is delegated to handle issues with the social media since it is such a huge part of our society now.
Post a Comment