A television news show would not conclude their broadcast each night by advising viewers to go buy a can of Coke or Pepsi. The anchor would not tell the audience to buy a Buick or to check out the newest line of Sony’s media products. Promoting commercial goods, brands or corporations, like the ones just named, would seem out-of-place during a supposedly objective newscast, yet this same type of promotion occurs dozens of times during every news s on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Each time an anchor utters the phrase “You can follow us on Facebook of Twitter”; they are engaging in the promotion of two private companies. With ever increasing percentages of Americans (especially the younger demographic) getting their current events information from following news organizations on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, it is understandable why networks are pushing the interactive social media news sites. Yet promoting the use of Facebook and Twitter presents a potential conflict of interests for the news networks. Will the news networks objectively cover a story that deals with Facebook or Twitter if one of the news networks goals is to have their audience go on sites like Facebook and Twitter? Hypothetically let’s say Facebook made a decision with the Chinese government to allow for severe governmental censorship of the website. This would cause Facebook to be viewed negatively in the eyes of most Americans, for Americans tend to value the freedom of speech. Could a newscast objectively cover and analyze a story that would cause viewers to be less favorable toward Facebook and then moments later advice the same audience to go to the newscasts page on Facebook? Reporting something bad about Facebook may cause less people to go on Facebook and thus less people to go on the newscasts Facebook page. Conflict of interest? I think so. This would be like a news show that ends its telecast each night with the recommendation to buy Pepsi trying to remain credible and objective when reporting on a new study that reveals Pepsi causes scurvy. This conflict of interest will only intensify if and when Facebook and Twitter decide to go public http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/06/technology/facebook_ipo_2012/index.htm.
The desire for profits will intensify with a publically traded company, and the objectively and integrity of television newscasts, the outlet that 73% of Americans still use for their primary source of news, may be compromised. The French government has recognized this conflict of interest and in response has banned the promotion of Facebook and Twitter on all its newscasts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/french-ban-twitter-facebook_n_871153.html
Now I understand there is a downsized to banning the promotion of specific social media sites on newscasts. And let me be clear that I am not against the use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. I think they are great. And by not reminding the audiences to check out these social media sites, fewer people may actual use the sites. These sites have become an incredibly effective way to get information out and mobilize movements for millions across the world, and American’s may become “out of the loop” if we do not continue to utilize social media. In places like China and the Middle East, social media sites have been the facilitator for protests and uprisings (just look at Egypt and Tunisia). Facebook feeds and Twitter posts are many Americans only direct window into the lives of those living in nations all around the world where monumental events are transpiring. By encouraging a viewer to go to the CNN Facebook or Twitter page, they are encouraging the viewer to learn more about what is occurring in parts of the world where media is not very accessible. Take China for example and this tweet found on through the CNN Facebook page http://twitter.com/#!/cnnbrk/status/81762402630246400.
So yes, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are immensely beneficial to nearly all citizens of the world, be they from the freest of nations or the most oppressive. And I would encourage everyone I come across to use social media sites in order to experience a unique form of news. Yet where there is a major issue is when a major news network has their anchors promoting specific social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. I can get away with promoting these sites because I am not in the business of covering and analyzing the major news stories of each day. But the conflict arises when you are promoting specific sites while being in the business of "objectively" covering the news. This presents a potentially significant conflict of interest, and I believe legislation modeled after the French ban will be needed to maintain the integrity of news coverage in the United States.
I think you bring up a reasonable concern by wondering whether or not it is appropriate for private companies to be promoted on a supposedly unbiased news channel. You propose a ban similar to the French one, which would essentially ban the promotion of Facebook and Twitter. To be honest, I really don’t think this will solve the problem. The anchor could simply say “remember you can follow us social networks.” I believe that by not naming a specific website, this would avoid being an explicit conflict of interest. However, this is basically saying the same thing as “use Facebook and Twitter.” Is anyone going to think “social network” still refers to Myspace or Linkedin? The larger issue here is that Facebook and Twitter are slowly moving away from being seen as private companies. The more they infiltrate society, the more they are seen as tools that essentially “belong” to every American. Facebook and Twitter are seen less as the new Pepsi and Coke, and more as the new paper and pen. This unique quality of Facebook and Twitter makes them an entire method of communication unto themselves. So it will be interesting to see if they are really treated by the courts as just another private company like Pepsi and Coke, when they seem to be so much more.
ReplyDeleteI think that on the whole you make a good argument, but I would argue that the pros of having people follow news sources on Facebook and Twitter outweighs the cons. As you said, many people receive their news from these social media sites, and these provide a means for Americans to truly see what is going on in the rest of the world. You argued that news sources promoting social media could be a conflict of interest if facebook or twitter were to do something bad. However, I do not think that this is really the case. News sources see facebook and twitter followers as a bonus, not really the main goal, which is to gain viewers. A negative story on facebook or twitter might actually raise viewership, since so many people are invested in them, which would benefit the news outlet. Furthermore, I do not think that a negative story on facebook or twitter would mean losing a significant number of people from the sites. They have become so ingrained in our society and everyday life that a negative story would not change people’s usage. So, overall I think promoting social media on the news only benefits them and does not really provide a conflict of interest.
ReplyDelete