TechMiso

What could be perceived as a gag order, the New York Times laid out its knee-jerk ground rules in an effort to neutralize its staffers activity on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. PoynterOnline reported on a policy letter sent in from NY Times assistant managing editor, Craig Whitney.

Whitney writes:

If you have or are getting a Facebook page, leave blank the section that asks about your political views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Whitney goes on to say:

In general, being a “friend” of someone on Facebook is almost meaningless and does not signify the kind of relationship that could pose a conflict of interest for a reporter or editor writing about that person. But if a “friend” is really a personal friend, it would.

We all know the potential exists for conflict inside any friendship, not just with a ‘Facebook friend.’ In light of any conflict though, there are ways in performing damage control. As was the case with President Obama’s famed preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright — simply — Obama rejected Wright and quickly distanced himself from the issue.

Although the damage was done, Obama came out ahead — in large part due to his squeaky clean ethics — ultimately saving himself from any disgrace or further contention.

Same goes for any good reporter wanting a presence in the social network scene. Good ethics equal no worries. Why would the NY Times’ lay out policy like this. It almost seems as though Whitney is putting out a preexisting ethical fire.

More from Whitney:

Should we avoid consenting to be Facebook “friends” of people in the news we cover? Mostly no, but the answer can depend on the situation. A useful way to think about this is to imagine whether public disclosure of a “friend” could somehow turn out to be an embarrassment that casts doubt on our impartiality. It would not have looked good in the presidential election campaign for a national political reporter to agree to be a “friend” of Barack Obama without first making sure to be a “friend” of John McCain, too.

Granted – being a ‘Facebook friend’ of Obama and not of McCain could lead to a perception of impartiality, but is this risk of perception worth censoring a reporter’s social networking altogether? Whitney’s policy puts NY Times reporters under a social lock-down in sharing their [real] identity, likes, dislikes and social preferences — potentially stifling editorial creativity.

Whether good or bad, humans will read into just about ‘anything’ outside a Webster’s definition. And people who maintain any form of presence on the social network scene are obviously open for scrutiny — regardless if you’re a NY Times reporter — or a high school kid tweeting your girlfriend on Twitter.

Recipe for a successful online presence: Heaping spoonful of good ethics with a sprinkle of forethought. Simmer for a lifetime.