Sky News Tells Reporters Not To Use Twitter To Break News Without Permission
from the how-not-to-do-it dept
It’s kind of amazing to see how little Rupert Murdoch-owned media entities seem to get the internet. The latest is that Sky News — which had been building up a reputation for having reporters who used Twitter to break various stories — has issued a clampdown against journalists using Twitter to break stories, or even to tweet anything outside of their official beat. It’s like instructions on exactly how to kill off any Twitter presence. So, Sky journalists are not allowed to break a story without permission. It first has to get approval from the news desk. Reporters must “stick to” their own beat, and can’t talk about anything else. They’re not allowed to retweet reporters from other news entities or, really, any other person on Twitter. The only thing journalists can do (and are, in fact, encouraged to do) is to retweet stories that were posted by other Sky journalists (after those stories got approval from the news desk, presumably). It really is a perfect list of exactly the opposite of what a good modern journalist on Twitter should be doing these days. They should be breaking news on Twitter. They should be retweeting others. They should be willing to stray from their beat at times. All of these things build up connections and relationships with readers/fans/viewers. Not surprisingly, Sky staffers are apparently not at all happy about this:
Journalists at the broadcaster expressed shock and dismay at the new guidelines, which they claim are a retrograde step.
Well, it’s a Murdoch property, so… retrograde steps seem to be par for the course.
Filed Under: communicating, journalism, social media, uk
Companies: sky news, twitter
Comments on “Sky News Tells Reporters Not To Use Twitter To Break News Without Permission”
Not only Murdoch
The BBC followed suit the day after…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/08/twitter-bbc-journalists
Just a thought, but it does seem prudent to talk with companies like this to understand their motivations before labeling them buffoons. Maybe some deserve it, but at least they should be given an opportunity to provide input.
Have to be generous
I think it’s reasonable to be generous with Mike on this issue — given that he’s been seeing this kind of behavior for more than a decade, in a wide range of analogous contexts.
Sad to say that these kinds of rules don't apply to where they are needed the most,
Murdoch’s own ranting misinformed tweets.
It is their business, let them conduct it as they see fit. If you feel they aren’t giving you value for your money, don’t buy their product.
How hard is that?
Rather than bitching about every bad move that you feel Murdoch makes, why not work on something positive instead? Why is there so much negative and so little positive here?
Re:
It is his business, let him conduct it as he sees fit. If you feel he isn’t giving you value for your money, don’t buy his product.
How hard is that?
Rather than bitching about every bad move that you feel Masnick makes, why not work on something positive instead? Why is there so much negative and so little positive here?
Sad to say that these kinds of rules don't apply to where they are needed the most,
The worst thing is, it’s likely that it’s exactly that kind of disinformative twittershitting that they expect to wrangle everyone to produce. They can’t have an uncontrolled information outlet, evidence of reality might leak out and devalue their investments in lies.
Ugh. Sometimes I can’t tell if I’m overdramatizing or if things really are that ridculous.
Re:
/me puts on a blindfold
Why is it so dark in here?
Where did all the light go?
I think Rupert Murdoch is a bit afraid of “liability”.
Re:
Yeah, sure, the phone hacking controversy should be supported because it gave the world so much juicy gossip they didn’t know they needed. Let them conduct that as they see fit.
You shills sure have your priorities straight.
Well they couldn’t hack twitter or pay them off so I guess they need to do something.
As for the Murdoch reporters actually obeying this? I think Murdoch and his news organisations have a lot more pressing criminal matters to worry about then actually caring how there stories get out.
Re:
The only thing positive about Murdoch is that he gave up his Australian Citizenship to become an American.
The positive? Well us Australians cannot be held responsible for his idiocy and wrongful behaviour!
Oh and I’m positive your a wannabee troll.
See lots of positives here
I wonder why there are still real folks out there to tell us the news.
you can as well put up an animation mimicking a real person and programming some emotions in between.
folks still watching the MSM as if they represent the truth are good for a visit to the slaughterhouse.
Re:
This is not a place for positive is a place to highlight the bad, is the lighthouse the shines the dark corners.
Eh, I live in Houston, and...
say what you will about the mainstream media channels (tv & newspaper), their local news reporting is second to none.
Except NBC. I don’t know why, but for some reason, NBC’s local news is just… awful.
Re:
Rather than bitching about every bad move that you feel Murdoch makes, why not work on something positive instead? Why is there so much negative and so little positive here?
Just a tip: for trolling to be truly effective, it can’t be so ridiculous that it’s clearly parody of what you, yourself are doing.
Ummm Hot News?
If they can’t tweet breaking news, don’t all Sky News reporters run the risk of violating hot news “rights” ?
I’m sure the AP is happy with Sky News’ decision.
Why would you order your reporters not to break stories? They’re reporters, aren’t they?
If I were running things, I’d order them to break stories on Twitter. Brief 140-character posts from their phones to report events as they happen, then later a link to the full-length article describing things in detail.
Re:
“talk with companies like this “
Do you honestly think they’d give any more information than that already released?
“understand their motivations before labeling them buffoons”
The motivations generally seem to be the same as ever – a doomed attempt to retain both control of information and the profit that they believe will come with exclusivity.
They’re free to respond to the article, and correct the assumptions above if he’s wrong, but this does seem to be yet another bad move by a corporation who seems to be woefully unprepared to deal with the modern internet.
Re:
Are you serious? This is Newscorp, the owners of Fox news, patron of the neocons, feudal plaything of a twisted golem with as much respect for you, me or his employees as Genghis Khan. Screw them and reveal every … single … disgrace they perpetrate.
How hard is that?
Twitter is news for free. Sky News is not. Why should Sky News reporters be expected to break news on Twitter? If anything they should be breaking news on Sky News first, so that paying customers get their money’s worth, and then tweet about it.
It’s easy to tell others how to run their business when you have nothing to lose.
Re:
“It is their business, let them conduct it as they see fit. If you feel they aren’t giving you value for your money, don’t buy their product.”
I don’t. Then, when their industry collapses because of their mistakes, I get called a pirate and laws (paid for by lobbyists employed by said industry) are passed to prop up the failures.
Sorry, that becomes my problem, and I’m as entitled to my voice as you are.
“Why is there so much negative and so little positive here?”
I’m sure that if Murdoch makes a positive move, it will be applauded. We just have to wait for such a thing to happen.
Re:
“Twitter is news for free. Sky News is not”
Yes it is. I can receive Sky News without paying a penny, it’s an unencrypted channel freely available to anyone who can receive the Astra satellite signal. They also have a free-of-charge website where I can read their news without paying a bean, where I can also stream an international version of their news channel free of charge.
Seriously, when your assertions are based on such faulty premises, how can you expect your conclusions to be taken seriously?
Re:
No, the comparisson isn’t fair with the steppe hordes. They at least cared about their own, while Newscorp shows that they couldn’t care less about their own employees.
the business is to release news on avenue A, the reporters tweet it out on avenue B, its a business decision, nothing more, they are not trying to kill tweets, just control how they release their product to the public, nothing wrong with that
why would you want your reporters to retweet other peoples and other news agency’s news, really… you can’t figure that one out
Not only Murdoch
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a concerted effort to demonise anonymity and the social networks such as Facebook and Twitter recently in the British media ?
There have a been an awful lot of stories on trolls, the nastier kind, and people who’ve had their feelings hurt by nasty tweets etc.
I’ve noticed this a lot over the last couple of weeks, especially on the BBC channels. Just wondering if this is leading up to something…
Not only Murdoch
On the one hand, this is typical of the British media, scare stories about things taken out of proportion are par for the course. Even the BBC have hardly been above pitching in with scare stories over the years.
Then again, maybe they’re just trying to deflect attention. After the Sun’s journalists were arrested, I wouldn’t be surprised if the traditional media do launch an all-out attack to try and stop people realising how corrupt they are.
Re:
It is their business, let them conduct it as they see fit. If you feel they aren’t giving you value for your money, don’t buy their product.
In the UK, we have to pay a license fee, all of which goes to the BBC. Now if the BBC have also followed suit then we are not getting our monies worth and we cannot exactly not buy the product, since we are forced to pay this.
Personally, I don’t watch any Sky channels, and normally turn to BBC news channel for proper news.
Re:
“it does seem prudent to talk with companies like this to understand their motivations before labeling them buffoons.”
They would have to get a note from their mother before answering.
Re:
But … but … old school
Re:
psssst – see post above yours, it explains this very complicated subject
Re:
“just control how they release their product to the public, nothing wrong with that”
Why would a news reporting organization be interested in reporting all the news? Control of what is news would be so much more fun. Ignorance is bliss and they are simply giving their customers what they want. There is no need for the news corp consumer to expend any effort looking at other sources because news corp is fair and balanced.
The first rule of Sky News..
…don’t tweet about Sky News.
“They should be breaking news on Twitter. They should be retweeting others.”
How do I see their twits?
Do I need to follow them? If yes, then wouldn’t a message board be better? Post to reddit? How many do I need to follow?
What makes twitter better?
Re:
“How do I see their twits?”
Buy them some dwinks.
One cannot feel sympathy...
…for anyone who works for Murdoch. He’s one of the most evil people on the planet.
Not only Murdoch
Well these news outlets have a serious problem. If they allow their reporters to report on the fly like they have been then they no longer have control over what is news and what is not. This means that big stories like these IP debates and protests might slip out before they could be silenced.
"News"
Nothing of today amazes me more than a public and television “news” audience that doesn’t realize what they are seeing and hearing nowadays is a “Jurassic Park” movie. Today’s “information media” is designed to construct a reality that is only virtual, a reality intended to keep the public in a “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest bedlam – helpless, bewilderd, and totally dependent upon their keepers – government.
Folks, these people hold you and your mentality in utter contempt (an add executive told me years ago that, given the right wherewithall, she could have the people of the U.S. “eating a plate of shit for lunch.”
It’s too late, but just so you know what happening to you, look up “Operation MOCKINGBIRD.” And notice the choice of name for the C.I.A., military industrial complex operation YOU paid for.
"News"
Nothing of today amazes me more than a public and television “news” audience that doesn’t realize what they are seeing and hearing nowadays is a “Jurassic Park” movie. Today’s “information media” is designed to construct a reality that is only virtual, a reality intended to keep the public in a “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest bedlam – helpless, bewilderd, and totally dependent upon their keepers – government.
Folks, these people hold you and your mentality in utter contempt (an add executive told me years ago that, given the right wherewithall, she could have the people of the U.S. “eating a plate of shit for lunch.”
It’s too late, but just so you know what happening to you, look up “Operation MOCKINGBIRD.” And notice the choice of name for the C.I.A., military industrial complex operation YOU paid for.
When you are and organization that distributes propaganda you need to stay on message.
Not only Murdoch
“This means that big stories like these IP debates and protests might slip out before they could be silenced.”
ROFLMAO … yeah, like news can be silenced in this day and age.
Re:
“How do I see their twits?”
Buy them some dwinks.
And then comes mawwage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wiffin a dweam. So tweasure your wuv.
Re:
Just a thought, but it does seem prudent to talk with companies like this to understand their motivations before labeling them buffoons. Maybe some deserve it, but at least they should be given an opportunity to provide input.
Um, Pirate Mike doesn’t actually do any journalism before running with a story. He just jumps to conclusions, reports on his twisted, incomplete idea of what the story really is, and then goes on to his next hit piece. It’s not about “getting it right,” it’s about whining about how everyone else is dumb and how Pirate Mike is the best.
I despise Fox/Murdoch as much as the next person and surely blame them for playing a large part of the Fall of Civilization, but still I can’t fault them for wanting to have editorial control over their product.
This policy is probably the result of one or two reporters going too far somehow. Since managements these days don’t like to actually manage people (“See here, Joe, this tweet of yours…”), they just respond with a policy (“No tweeting!”).
Re:
Rather than bitching about every bad move that you feel Murdoch makes, why not work on something positive instead? Why is there so much negative and so little positive here?
Pirate Mike is a deluded idiot. All he knows how to do is bash, bash, bash. What a sad, chubby fuck. He should call this shithole “TechWhine.”
Re:
Just a tip: for trolling to be truly effective, it can’t be so ridiculous that it’s clearly parody of what you, yourself are doing.
Typical douchebag response: Doesn’t address the substance of the comment.
Re:
I think Rupert Murdoch is a bit afraid of “liability”.
Yeah. That and he’s still pissed off that these Twitter comments weren’t caught by his news desk and edited before they “went to press”.
Re:
I’m sorry, where do we see an example of your non-bashing, ad hominem-free writing?
Re:
There was substance?
Re:
Most news articles I read solicit comments from both parties in matters such as this. Perhaps one chooses not to comment, but at least they are provided the opportunity to do so before an article goes to press.
I see no good reason why this practice is not followed here.
Re:
I’m pretty sure he went straight to the heart of the “substance” of your comment.
And right over your head.
Re:
You’re a good, faithful lapdog, PaulT. Here’s some more Kool-Aid.
Re:
Because it’s an opinion blog.
Re:
That sure is the pot calling the kettle black!
You sir, have won me with your rapier wit and flawless logic.
Re:
Is it the same stuff you’ve been drinking? I hope you sneaky devils don’t change the label before passing it around to the rest of us!
We always get the kool aid last, and its never as hallucinogenic as yours is ;(
Re:
Is it the same stuff you’ve been drinking? I hope you sneaky devils don’t change the label before passing it around to the rest of us!
We always get the kool aid last, and its never as hallucinogenic as yours is ;(
Re:
You called Mike several childish names, attacked the site and accused him of bashing people in the process.
Go on – what was in that short paragraph that wasn’t 10 times worse than what you’re trying to attack Mike for in the same breath?
Re:
Addressing illegal substances is a jailable offense.
Re:
That’s why you’re here to tell us everything he’s doing wrong.
Re:
That must be the good stuff since, you bitch about Mike bitching about something and it is always bashing him so clearly you have lost the sense of reality and I know you don’t have the Job’s reality distortion field that one is on the grave, but I digress the only explanation as to why you can’t see the irony in a guy bitching about the bitchings of another is that you are high as a kite.
Re:
WOW!!!! Someone woke up with anger issues today and decided to take it out on Mike.
Step away from the computer…. take a few deep breaths…..
Breath in….. Breath out
Breath in….. Breath out
Breath in….. Breath out
There that feel better?
Now walk out of your moms basement and get some fresh air.
Re:
Come on PaulT, surely you know better than that. Everyone knows that just because Sky News is free to watch, it doesn’t mean they aren’t making money out of you. Hell, that’s the entire premise of most free-to-air channels. Broadcast for free, sell the eyeballs to advertisers. Maybe I shouldn’t have said Sky News is not free. What I meant was you may be watching it for free, but your attention is being monetized, so in a way it isn’t free.
Anyway, the core point is: why should their reporters be expected to break news on an external platform? To reach millions? What happens to their online presence (the channel and web site you mentioned) and brand identity? What’s the point in having a web site if all their breaking news is on Twitter? I’d like to know what your take on that is.
I agree Twitter is a very efficient platform for reaching out and connecting to an audience, which is why I said Sky should allow reporters to tweet only after breaking news on their own web site or channel (perhaps you missed that part).
It’s stupid to ban reporters from using Twitter or retweet other agency stories, but I agree with Sky’s decision to draw a fine line when it comes to breaking news. What else should they do? Break news on Twitter and sell T-shirts?
Re:
Ah, deflection, lovely.
“What I meant was you may be watching it for free, but your attention is being monetized, so in a way it isn’t free.”
So, exactly the same as Twitter, then. Your point?
“What’s the point in having a web site if all their breaking news is on Twitter?”
Same point as having a web site if all their breaking news is on their TV channel, I suppose.
“why should their reporters be expected to break news on an external platform?”
Because most people don’t watch Sky News. If Sky get a reputation for breaking news, more people will tune into them. If they get a reputation for repeating stories that have already been floating around Twitter for hours, they’ll lose viewers.
“I agree Twitter is a very efficient platform for reaching out and connecting to an audience, which is why I said Sky should allow reporters to tweet only after breaking news on their own web site or channel (perhaps you missed that part).”
No, I didn’t. But, by the time they do that, the news will already have spread, possibly before it’s even been approved by their news desk. You missed the part where a single news agency can’t keep the lid on news unless it’s invented by the channel itself (well, it is a Murdoch outlet, i suppose…)
Yeah, they can wait, but other people won’t and they’ll lose their breaking news cap while doing so.
“Break news on Twitter and sell T-shirts?”
And we’re back to this moronic strawman. Get some new material, this was old before twitter even existed.
Re:
But I thought using them was illegal.
Re:
“So, exactly the same as Twitter, then. Your point?”
“Same point as having a web site if all their breaking news is on their TV channel, I suppose.”
Sky News would like to break news on its own online properties, not Twitter, since it doesn’t own Twitter. I can’t believe you don’t see that. This is breaking news we are talking about. I’m all for them breaking it on their channel first. How do they stand to gain if all their news is on Twitter first? Who are their paying customers?
“Because most people don’t watch Sky News. If Sky get a reputation for breaking news, more people will tune into them. If they get a reputation for repeating stories that have already been floating around Twitter for hours, they’ll lose viewers.”
So you think it’s better to use Twitter as a platform to announce to the whole world what stories you are breaking rather than relay it on your own channel or web site. That would only mean greater dependence on an external platform, which is not good for any company.
Also, I don’t think they are going to lose many TV viewers if they don’t go on Twitter first.
“No, I didn’t. But, by the time they do that, the news will already have spread, possibly before it’s even been approved by their news desk.”
The news would spread even if they break it on their site or channel. Don’t you think their loyal customers should get first access to their exclusive news?
“You missed the part where a single news agency can’t keep the lid on news unless it’s invented by the channel itself.”
I didn’t say anything about keeping a lid on the news, which is impossible today. What matters, at least to the company, is where the story appears first. On the company properties or social media? I think Sky may also be wary of the deluge of news that we see on Twitter. There’s so much noise it’s quite a task to make your voice heard.
“And we’re back to this moronic strawman. Get some new material, this was old before twitter even existed.”
🙂 Hey, this was supposed to funny. I’ve been on Techdirt long enough to know better than bring up T-shirts except as a joke.
Re:
“This policy is probably the result of one or two reporters going too far somehow.”
Yeah, they probably tweeted about the arrests of top Sun executives.
Re:
How is it not addressing the substance of the comment? Troll insists that Mike is never positive about Murdoch; Mike responds that given the fact that trolls are never positive about him, the troll is in no position to complain.
Re:
Weren’t you supposed to disappear after you became magically unanonymous, chubby?
Re:
Well, first off I have to note how you’ve managed to steer the conversation away from your original point. You asserted that Sky News was not free, while Twitter was, and that made their actions logical. Once I pointed out that Sky News is also free, you’re trying to veer as far away from that as you can. I’d have more respect if you could just admit you were wrong from time to time.
Anyway, sure Sky would like to have everything on their own platform. But, they can’t. Not if they want to expose their services to as many people as possible. Not in the modern marketplace reality. It’s a trade-off, and frankly most breaking news will take place on Twitter nowadays – with or without them. Trying to force their own staff to ignore this won’t make a lick of difference to the actual conversation. There’s ways to differentiate themselves from other Twitter users, but ignoring it isn’t the way.
“Also, I don’t think they are going to lose many TV viewers if they don’t go on Twitter first.”
In the short term, I’d agree. In the longer term, especially with younger potential viewers, I’m not so sure.
“The news would spread even if they break it on their site or channel.”
Yes, it would. But would it still spread with “Sky broke this story first” or “people involved on the ground broke the story, then Sky reported on it an hour later”?
“Don’t you think their loyal customers should get first access to their exclusive news? “
Again, which loyal customers? Anyone with access to Sky has access to at least 6 news channels for free. Nobody pays directly for Sky News. maybe you meant “viewers” rather than “customers”, so why not attract more people to pay attention to them? Tweets would not make people less likely to check out the full TV coverage.
“What matters, at least to the company, is where the story appears first.”
Which will almost certainly be Twitter, with or without their influence.
“I think Sky may also be wary of the deluge of news that we see on Twitter. There’s so much noise it’s quite a task to make your voice heard.”
Again, if they have a reputation for breaking the news first both on Twitter and outside it, they will be a source more closely listened to. If they have a reputation for parroting what’s been said for hours by others once they finally get their arse in gear, they will be ignored. Their choice.
Besides, the BBC actually have a specific account dedicated to breaking news. Do they lose some reputation because of this in your eyes, or is it a good idea?
“:) Hey, this was supposed to funny. I’ve been on Techdirt long enough to know better than bring up T-shirts except as a joke.”
In that case I’ll crack a little smile, but Poe’s law does tend to be in full force around here! It’s impossible to tell if anyone’s serious, so I default to yes, as there’s still far too many who still are.