Skip to main content

WSJ Staff Not Allowed To Mix "Business And Pleasure" On Twitt...

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Rank

Bookmark History

Saved by 1 people (0 private), first by anonymouse user on 2009-05-13


Public Sticky notes

"discuss articles that haven't been published, meetings you've attended or plan to attend with staff or sources, or interviews that you've conducted."

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Reasonable for some cases, yet surely it would be okay to discuss meetings and interviews with public figures?

whether on Dow Jones sites or in social-networking, e-mail, personal blogs, or other sites outside Dow Jones

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

This covers nearly every form of digital communication, and is tantamount to including phone calls for web-generation.

Never misrepresent yourself using a false name when you're acting on behalf of your Dow Jones publication or service.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Part of good professional ethics, does this not apply already to all forms of communication?

Base all comments posted in your role as a Dow Jones employee in the facts, drawing from and citing your reporting when appropriate.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Good practice for all writers, and a reasonable goal in professional capacity.

Base all comments posted in your role as a Dow Jones employee in the facts, drawing from and citing your reporting when appropriate. Sharing your personal opinions, as well as expressing partisan political views, whether on Dow Jones sites or on the larger Web, could open us to criticism that we have biases and could make a reporter ineligible to cover topics in the future for Dow Jones.

Highlighted by amiigo

could open us to criticism that we have biases

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Critical perspectives can be welcomed by unbiased authors to substantiate the claim their article is based on fact.

whether on Dow Jones sites or on the larger Web

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Views expressed outside professional capacity should not be subject to approval by one's employer.

Consult your editor before "connecting" to or "friending" any reporting contacts who may need to be treated as confidential sources. Openly "friending" sources is akin to publicly publishing your Rolodex.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Very good technical advice, which some users may not be aware of.

Let our coverage speak for itself, and don't detail how an article was reported, written or edited.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

These are not mutually exclusive, in that providing additional details can be valuable, if done to further an article that is already strong enough to stand on its own.

Don't discuss articles that haven't been published, meetings you've attended or plan to attend with staff or sources, or interviews that you've conducted.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Overly vague, what about discussing every day meetings with other staff? Encouraging employees to talk an editor in sensitive cases would be certainly be advisable however.

Don't disparage the work of colleagues or competitors or aggressively promote your coverage.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Goes back to #2, in that crticism is useful to the degree it is based on research and factual reporting.

Don't engage in any impolite dialogue with those who may challenge your work -- no matter how rude or provocative they may seem.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Great media/social media advice, agreed on by popular bloggers.

Avoid giving highly-tailored, specific advice to any individual on Dow Jones sites. Phrases such as "Travel agents are saying the best deals are X and Y..." are acceptable while counseling a reader "You should choose X..." is not. Giving generalized advice is the best approach.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

The first phrase is indeed better, the reason is actually because it is *more* specific by providing evidence for its claim.

Common sense should prevail, but if you are in doubt about the appropriateness of a Tweet or posting, discuss it with your editor before sending.

Highlighted by amiigo

on 2009-05-13 by amiigo

Educated decision making and judgment of the professional remain the surest guarantee of high quality journalism.

Business and pleasure should not be mixed on services like Twitter.

Highlighted by amiigo

Readers (1)