media issues

The hashtag conundrum: How should journalists negotiate public and private on social media?

With social media blurring the line between public and private more than ever, do journalists need to think about how, and to what effect, they use advocacy hashtags in their messages?

Journalistic objectivity has come under the spotlight in Australia as debate rages over a recent High Court decision that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers is legal.

This is no doubt an emotionally charged debate, and the way Australia deals with asylum seekers has been under scrutiny for some time. For journalists working on the story, it can create a conundrum – particularly if they have a strong personal view on the issue.

Do they hold tight to traditional journalistic tenets like “objectivity” and merely report the facts? How can they do this in a world of social media where journalists are increasingly becoming their own brands and it is expected that they offer personal views? Should they even aim for objectivity, or just acknowledge that it is an unrealistic ideal and all journalism is advocacy anyway?

Advocacy versus objectivity

The emergence of the Twitter hashtag #letthemstay and its use by journalists reporting on the asylum seeker issue prompts such questions over whether reporting and advocacy are becoming increasingly blurred.

Advocacy journalism also came under scrutiny in light of revelations that an ABC story reporting that a five-year-old boy had been raped on Nauru was incorrect.

The reporting led to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection secretary, Michael Pezzullo, lamenting the rise of bias in journalism. He argued:

It’s getting to the point that there is advocacy parading as journalism that is actually deleterious to a sensible discussion about these matters.

It also ties in with a larger debate over recent years. Some argue that advocacy journalism is on the rise. Others argue that simplistic “he said, she said” journalism is actually doing us a disservice, such as the false balance phenomenon in science reporting.

Objectivity is one of journalism’s dearest principles today, as many of its practitioners use it to justify their existence. It wasn’t always so, as objectivity was mostly an invention of the 19th and early 20th century in order for journalism to appeal to a wider variety of people, rather than niche audiences. Before then, however, party-political journalism was very much the norm.

In a time where journalism is becoming more fragmented, it appears that niche audiences are more important again, with some publications specialising for certain types of audiences. The pendulum may be swinging again.

It is well known, for example, that The Australian leans to the right politically, while The Guardian takes a left-leaning approach. This is no big secret, and journalists I have spoken to readily admit as much.

There also seems to be an increasing acknowledgement among many journalists that objectivity is an unattainable ideal in any case, because no-one can ever completely ignore their personal views and biases.

Objectivity and the rise of social media

Still, it seems that the idea of objectivity is largely ingrained in Australian journalists. A survey I conducted in 2013 revealed that three in four of them thought it was very or extremely important to be detached observers. In contrast, just over one-third saw it as very or extremely important to advocate for social change.

Unfortunately, we do not yet have reliable longitudinal data available to test whether this number is on the increase. But if we look at journalists’ behaviour on social media, which are increasingly important professional tools, we can observe an ongoing struggle to differentiate between professional and personal aspects.

To be successful on platforms such as Twitter, it is not enough simply to post links to one’s own stories anymore. You need to present a personal as much as a professional persona. This is an issue that many journalists – as well as their employers – are struggling with.

To what extent may personal views expressed on Twitter compromise one’s reporting? The most successful journalists have developed quite elaborate brands, and many employers certainly now have this expectation of their reporters.

Opinion is important in this mix, as journalists know very well, given that opinion pages of newspapers have always been among their most popular sections.

At the same time, employers are wary of journalists’ personal behaviour on Twitter coming into conflict with the organisation’s brand. There have been some high-profile cases where journalists have lost their jobs as a result. Social media guidelines are still murky and changeable.

Some journalists now list a disclaimer in their Twitter profiles that their views are their own. A recent study I conducted with my colleague Axel Bruns shows 30% of Australian journalists make use of this option. But this doesn’t necessarily avoid conflict or mean they can escape punishment.

What now?

So, where does this leave journalists who are reporting on the asylum seeker issue, but also tweeting using #lethemstay? It is an incredibly vexed issue, and journalists need to make their own considered decision on how they want to engage with the hashtag, as merely using it in a tweet may not necessarily signal endorsement.

But in such an emotional issue, it is unrealistic to expect journalists not to have a view, and it might actually be good for them to be open about this.

Journalists who express their opinion and declare their biases may be seen as more honest, and are contributing to increased transparency of journalistic work – a de-mystification of the craft even. This would in turn allow audiences to better appreciate and understand the news they consume.

Folker Hanusch, Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow, Queensland University of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Decoding the symbolic threads and badges of one of India’s oldest cavalry units

The untold story of The President’s Bodyguard.

The national emblem of India; an open parachute and crossed lances – this triad of symbols representing the nation, excellence in training and valor respectively are held together by an elite title in the Indian army – The President’s Bodyguard (PBG).

The PBG badge is worn by one of the oldest cavalry units in the India army. In 1773, Governor Warren Hastings, former Governor General of India, handpicked 50 troopers. Before independence, this unit was referred to by many titles including Troops of Horse Guards and Governor General’s Body Guards (GGBG). In 1950, the unit was named The President’s Bodyguard and can be seen embroidered in the curved maroon shoulder titles on their current uniforms.

The President’s Bodyguard’s uniform adorns itself with proud colours and symbols of its 245 year-old-legacy. Dating back to 1980, the ceremonial uniform consists of a bright red long coat with gold girdles and white breeches, a blue and gold ceremonial turban with a distinctive fan and Napoleon Boots with spurs. Each member of the mounted unit carries a special 3-meter-long bamboo cavalry lance, decorated by a red and white pennant. A sheathed cavalry sabre is carried in in the side of the saddle of each trooper.

While common perception is that the PBG mainly have ceremonial duties such as that of being the President’s escort during Republic Day parade, the fact is that the members of the PBG are highly trained. Handpicked by the President’s Secretariat from mainstream armored regiments, the unit assigns a task force regularly for Siachen and UN peace keeping operations. Moreover, the cavalry members are trained combat parachutists – thus decorating the PBG uniform with a scarlet Para Wings badge that signifies that these troopers are a part of the airborne battalion of the India Army.

Since their foundation, the President’s Guard has won many battle honors. In 1811, they won their first battle honor ‘Java’. In 1824, they sailed over Kalla Pani for the first Burmese War and earned the second battle honour ‘Ava’. The battle of Maharajapore in 1843 won them their third battle honor. Consequently, the PBG fought in the main battles of the First Sikh War and earned four battle honours. Post-independence, the PBG served the country in the 1962 Indo-China war and the 1965 Indo-Pak war.

The PBG, one of the senior most regiments of the Indian Army, is a unique unit. While the uniform is befitting of its traditional and ceremonial role, the badges that augment those threads, tell the story of its impressive history and victories.

How have they managed to maintain their customs for more than 2 centuries? A National Geographic exclusive captures the PBG’s untold story. The documentary series showcases the discipline that goes into making the ceremonial protectors of the supreme commander of the Indian Armed Forces.

Play

The National Geographic exclusive is a landmark in television and is being celebrated by the #untoldstory contest. The contest will give 5 lucky winners an exclusive pass to the pre-screening of the documentary with the Hon’ble President of India at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. You can also nominate someone you think deserves to be a part of the screening. Follow #UntoldStory on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to participate.

This article was produced by Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic and not by the Scroll editorial team.