Ben Smith (founder and editor in chief of BuzzFeed News) wrote in the New York Times on Sunday:
Other survey responses suggested that, perhaps, just perhaps, journalists are living
on a more Twitter-obsessed planet than normal people. When the pollsters showed
a version of a tweet from Ms. Wolfe that caused her Twitter trouble, the muddled
response made it clear that ordinary Americans had no idea what the fuss was
about.
The survey he is referring to asked Americans whether or not journalists should be vocal about their personal beliefs on social media (think: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok). Overall, the responses were mixed. Certain people said they trust journalists more when they share personal political and social beliefs publicly and vice versa.
This debate over whether or not journalists should have more freedom to voice their opinions on social media heightened after the recent firing of New York Times journalist Lauren Wolfe, whose job was terminated after tweeting that she got "chills" watching President Biden's plane land before his inauguration.
Now, this is where things get tricky. Clearly, some higher-up at the Times believed this Tweet to be the final straw, claiming that they "didn’t end someone’s employment over a single tweet." However, several other journalists did not support the Times' decision, calling them out on Twitter to "#rehireLauren."
Personally, I wonder how much of the American public actually saw Wolfe's tweets as a danger to editorial independence. As an aspiring journalist, I'm starting to think we do live "on a more Twitter-obsessed planet than normal people." How are journalists expected to "exercise their personal conscience" when it's clear that some of the old-school, traditional pillars of the Cronkite-era journalism still exist. If objectivity and the one-to-many news models are so obsolete, why are prominent media companies like the Times urging journalists to keep their opinions private? After all, isn't the 21st century an era where the audience chooses what news they trust in a world where almost anyone has the power to become a blogger or influencer?
Social media makes it easy for journalists to become too obsessed with their presence, or dare I say "brand." But, perhaps we should not be so narcissistic to assume our audience views personal and editorial content as one in the same. If journalism's "first loyalty is to citizens," then it's time for us to step outside of our "Twitter-obsessed planet" and recognize that not all American citizens read every Tweet and Instagram story with the skepticism of a journalist. And that's okay.
Lizzy, such an interesting point you make here. I think that journalists should be cautious when weighing their opinions on social or political topics. Sometimes, it can move away from people away from the facts and be misleading. You said, "Certain people said they trust journalists more when they share personal political and social beliefs publicly and vice versa." I understand why people want to read a journalist's opinion because it allows people to see the situation differently. I think that people who have extensive knowledge and are well educated on a topic should weigh in on their opinion because it helps many people understand and ignite conversations.
Hi Lizzie,
I believe that there are many dangers of journalists vocalizing their political and social opinions too much when it comes to journalism and public broadcasting because of their ability to sway opinions too far from actual fact. However, it can be particularly valuable for those who are well-researched and educated on a subject to give their input on an issue in order to help further push an idea. There seems to be a very fine line for what is too much and what is helpful. Thank you for sharing!