With a U.S. election looming, Twitter has created a new hub to train journalists on best practices to use the microblogging service.

The @TwitterforNews account shares, in 140 characters or less, tips for journalists. But the hub, Twitter for Newsrooms, is a more thorough guide to researching, reporting, engaging, networking and maintaining security.

"We want to make our tools easier to use so you can focus on your job: finding sources, verifying facts, publishing stories, promoting your work and yourself—and doing all of it faster and faster all the time," the service says on the site.
 
 
The Society of Professional Journalists has issued the first in a series of position papers on significant ethical issues for the craft. One of its first two counsels how to use the existing and venerable ethics code of the organization, but the other is more ground-gaining on political involvement.

The short-form message is: Don't. As in, run, donate, organize, campaign.
,
But the longer message in the paper, written by veteran journalist Fred Brown, is that public perception is such that a journalist has to demonstrate impartiality. Political involvement won't do that, he argues.

Brown is not impractical. He notes that objectivity isn't possible but impartiality is.

Brown, who covered politics for the Denver Post for four decades, asserts the importance of noting when publishers and proprietors weigh in to politics. As for editorial positions by newspapers, he says it's fine as long as there is a sharp and defined line between news and opinion for the public to see.

One thing he finds "unnecessarily prim": not voting. "The proof of a reporter's impartiality should be in the performance."


 
 
The recent payments to principals in key American news stories have revived the debate about the ethics of organizations and newsmakers in business deals.

The New York Times has written an overview of the recent episodes of chequebook (or, to spell it as Americans do, checkbook) journalism --- payments to a woman who received text messages from congressman Anthony Weiner in one case, and a woman captive for 18 years in another --- while the Poynter Institute has written a critique of the situation. In both articles there is a certain sense of resignation about the practice.

Organizations indulging in these recent incidents have policies against paying for interviews, but they have asserted their payments were for such things as education, access to home movies, and other matters. In many media, payment for stories and access is common, but the practice isn't all that common among the larger, more traditional media.

What are your views on the subject?
1 Comment
 
 
The recent use of social media to propel political activism does not come dilemma-free. Sites with cultures of neutrality and accommodation are finding themselves in quandaries about their approaches.

The New York Times explores how they are wrestling with this content and trying to preserve the integrity of the cultures that first made them attractive. It looks at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr, in particular.

The pressure is coming from all sides: from those who feel misrepresentation is viral and those who feel more anonymity is necessary to protect those speaking out.

Ultimately there are bound to be legal questions about the publishing responsibility.
1 Comment
 
 
Media Equation from The New York Times' David Carr is weekly required reading. It's often old hat to some of the most attentive media participants and spectators, but it holds up as a good standard.

This week's column has particular insight into what Barack Obama is confronting early in the presidency when issues materialize. It's a strong condemnation of traditional media's reticence to eschew vox populi. And it's, as one might expect from a traditional media writer, not entirely generous to the new traits and techniques of the Web in furthering and fomenting policy discussions.

Still, it has some nice touches in examining today's technological context of governance.
 
DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058