Australia’s Channel 7 has banned its staff from ‘Facebooking’, blocking their access to the popular social networking site via a central firewall. What a short-sighted, anachronistic means of attempting to boost productivity in a business that revolves around journalism and entertainment.
Web 2.0 platforms like blogging, YouTube and Facebook are not just time-wasting distractions from the business of media, they are also increasingly important research tools for journalists.
I note Channel 7 isn’t attempting to block access to YouTube – they obviously appreciate that web 2.0 platform as a source of news and vision from citizen journalists. So, why ban Facebook? It offers members the opportunity to send video, post links and provide tips to journalists in a more targeted way than YouTube. Did they originally consider banning journalists from access to email – the pre-cursor to Facebook?
From a reporter’s perspective, social media sites like Facebook are the new version of the indispensable contact book – supplementing the telephone book as a tool for locating sources. As a 7 news worker told the Daily Telegraph, the ban is counter-productive: "It's annoying for people like us who actually need to use it for work - seriously, we use it for research, trying to locate people and that sort of thing… It's not like we're sitting there poking or sending virtual cocktails." Indeed!
Consider the role Facebook played in coverage of the recent Federal Election. Politicians' FB pages became the source of stories – stories about their engagement (or lack thereof) with young voters, their popularity (Kevin Rudd kept having to create replica pages so he could add more FB friends…John Howard kept his page private because he had hardly any) and their capacity to interact with new technology. In short, their FB status became a metaphor for their social relevance.
And, as the US election approaches, Facebook is actually becoming another platform for media outlets to reach new audiences as newspapers and broadcasters struggle to keep pace with online media. ABC America not only allows its reporters to use Facebook at work its actually formed a ground-breaking partnership with FB to provide election coverage on the site. Reporters have been given their own pages to allow them to interact with audiences and a specific ABC-FB group, “US Politics”, has been established which effectively creates a mini, network-based, themed news-site on the platform allowing FB users to track coverage and participate in debate around the issues along with the reporting of them. So, ABC reporters may now find themselves adding ‘Facebook correspondent’ to their other roles as filers of traditional TV news stories and providers of text, audio, video and multimedia productions to the network’s online output. Watch that space – it’s a trend that’s likely to spread to these shores.
Meantime, Australian journalists also use the site for networking and debate with colleagues within their news organisation and from other media outlets. It provides an online version of the ‘pub debate’ model of reflexive practice that allows reporters to debrief, analyse and critique each others' work - a healthy professional practice which should be encouraged, not stifled. Employers should also consider the potential Occupational Health and Safety benefits of Facebook for journalists. It could, for example, serve a useful purpose in trauma-related recovery as journalists exposed to horrific events in their daily work find a safe space to discuss their feelings and experiences.
The other point for Channel 7 to consider relates to the role of Facebook as a marketing tool. It’s a virtual popularity index for individual members and is increasingly used by advertisers, celebrities and organisations to promote their products and causes. Seven’s celebrities and the programs in which they star are already featured on Facebook and there’s been an angry reaction from the network’s stable of stars to the FB blockade.
Someone needs to tell the bean counters at 7 Network headquarters that they’re peddling a false economy. Maybe they need a good trout-slapping via ‘superpoke’?
Declaration: I'm a certified Facebook addict and any attempt by the University of Canberra to block my access will be met with fierce opposition involving 'poking' with a blunt stick.
20 December, 2007
No Poking Please, You're a Journalist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Fair comments, however I think your facebook advocacy carries a dose of self interest. Seven's reaction is conservative and arguably counter productive, but more so because of what facebook represents rather than what it is. There are serious privacy issues associated with facebook and underlining the site is a serious commercial bottom line. In some ways facebook and like web2.0 technologies are direct threats to the dominance of traditional media outlets such as TV while YouTube is possibly less threatening because it essentially uses a familiar package (video) to deliver ideas and information albeit over a different medium (the internet).
Things like Facebook are not so easily categorised and that in turn can easily lead to mistrust and hostility. Unfortunately 7's decision on the grounds of productivity deprives its staff of the opportunity to develop an understanding of the evolving communications platform and with that, 7 is also likely to hinder any strategic growth with regard to Facebook.
Finally, the claim of lost productivity is probably difficult to substantiate if 7 continues to allow general web usage by its staff. It is highly reminiscent of the early days of email and the www when management in various companies fought to prevent general staff usage of the emerging technology, whilst at the same time making sure their own privileges were maintained.
I too use facebook.
Post a Comment