On Sky News, Twitter, and whether we would like journalists to be human

Those who work for news organisations should, within reason, have a free hand in their personal twee

Those who work for news organisations should, within reason, have a free hand in their personal tweets and writings.

Would we like journalists to be human? That's the question we should ask about the rules slapped on Sky hacks, forbidding them from retweeting other news sites or straying off their own specialisms.

Do we want real people, with opinions and personalities, to be tweeting, or would we prefer a Borg-like newsbot collective? It'll be a pretty grey old world if we settle for the latter option. If you want journos to be frightened, feeble characters mimsying around corporate gags and guidelines, be my guest. But good luck when you try and claim your business is all about free speech.

Journos are, after all, (mainly) people. They are often (relatively) good with words and (sometimes) like to read other people's stuff -- if that stuff is good they like to pass around examples of good stories and good writing. That's not really a corporate crime; it's just good manners and being professional.

Sure, human beings have failings. Sometimes they say or do daft things; sometimes they make a mess of it; sometimes they link to things or retweet things that are a bit iffy. But so what? Does it really reflect so badly on the employer?

It's embarrassing for everyone involved when someone does a "bad" tweet and their opponents pile in to draw attention to it. That kind of pack mentality around people who supposedly have transgressed is a feeble thing, and often makes those complaining look a lot worse than those at whom they're pointing their fingers.

We shouldn't prevent people who work for news organisations having a free hand, within reason, in their personal tweets and writings. After all, they really are people, just like you and me. Honest.

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media
New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.