The New York Times has assigned an editor to oversee the social media use of its Twitter-happy Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, according to its public editor, Margaret Sullivan. This isn’t out of nowhere, considering Rudoren’s history of Twitter-related controversies. What’s interesting is the tone of Sullivan’s explanation:
Start with a reporter who likes to be responsive to readers, is spontaneous and impressionistic in her personal writing style, and not especially attuned to how casual comments may be received in a highly politicized setting.
Put that reporter in one of the most scrutinized and sensitive jobs in journalism – the Jerusalem bureau chief of The New York Times.
Now add Facebook and Twitter, which allow reporters unfiltered, unedited publishing channels. Words go from nascent, half-formed thoughts to permanent pronouncements to the world at the touch of a key.
There had to be a way to phrase that without making Rudoren sound completely inept, right? As New York magazine notes in its headline, this column makes it sound like they’re getting her a babysitter rather than an editor.
Sullivan gets to the larger question:
There is, of course, a larger question here. Do Ms. Rudoren’s personal musings, as they have seeped out in unfiltered social media posts (and, notably, have been criticized from both the right and the left), make her an unwise choice for this crucially important job?
On this, we should primarily judge her reporting work as it has appeared in the paper and online. During the recent Gaza conflict, she broke news, wrote with sophistication and nuance about what was happening, and endured difficult conditions.
This decision by the Times was likely driven by the latest outcry over a Facebook post by Rudoren that described Israelis as “almost more traumatized” by deaths than the Palestinians. Anti-Israel types — which probably includes a substantial portion of Times readers — claimed Rudoren was downplaying the feelings of Palestinians. The Times could have just assigned Rudoren an editor and left it at that. But this column sounds like the paper felt it needed to give an additional mea culpa. It also raises some interesting questions. What observations does the Times feel are out-of-bounds for its journalists to make? And if social media — which is primarily used for quick observations — has to be edited, is there any point for journalists like Rudoren to use it at all?
looking forward to the comments. n n
Keep in mind that the NYT is responding to the criticism leveled against Rudoren's comments by the anti-Israel and antisemitic Mondoweiss blog. By the way, Rudoren had previously apologized on Facebook where her comments originally appeared. n nThe NYT did not feel it necessary to respond to criticism for it's jihad against Israel- especially on it's editorial pages…or on David Carr's blood libel column from the other day.
Maybe they're angry that she's bypassing their subscription based advertising model. It can't be that anyone cares she's a tool for Hamas. That's encouraged.
Thank goodness! I was increasingly frustrated that there was no easy way to utilize Jodi Rudoren's social media comments. At least her Times columns can be used as toilet paper in a pinch.
It is the fascist mentality that increasingly is appearing in large institutions of all sorts — the belief that they can control everything that anyone working for them says, the desire to have a strict top/down control of communication which with the new technologies, is now possible to do. nWe see it in academia — the (private) university that I hold adjunct status at wants to impose all kinds of policies & rules requiring faculty to get everything they say to the public approved first. n nIts actually kinda scary when you realize that almost all phone calls are now digital and it is possible to monitor digital data for certain key words (our government has been doing this for years) and now you could theoretically have your career end for saying something unapproved in a conversation with your parents. n nThis all started in response to industrial espionage, people sending stuff out via email but it has gone way beyond that at this point — some companies are really paranoid that someone working for them will say something critical of them.
sbz, just about the whole paper could be used for that purpose, especially the editorial page.