The risks and benefits of social media

Recently, I received a note from Harry Baisden, editor of SIPA’s Hotline and SIPAlert publications. Here’s what he as asking

The Miami Herald is talking about the risks that Twitter poses for papers. The column talks about two problems with Twitter (and other social media). With reporters able to talk to millions of people through some channel other than the newspaper, what claim can a publisher have to exclusivity if the reporter talks about the story before it is published in the newspaper.

With publishers seemingly connected to so many people through social networks, they lose invaluable face time with important news sources AND it will “further skew journalism toward seeking out, listening to and serving the young, the hip, the technically sophisticated, the well-off – in short, the better-connected.

Based on that, Harry asked the following questions, which are followed by my responses:

Do you believe SIPA members face these same risks?
Yes. SIPA members face this risk too, but to a lesser extent, at least at this point, due to two phenomena – our smaller, niche markets and the fact that we tend to have editorial staff members that get the marketing implications better than many traditional publishing realms.

If so, are the risks worth it for the value of the information you get and forward on to your customers from reporters’ involvement in these media?
I don’t think this is so much a question of is the risk worth it. This is a phenomenon that is happening and you can’t credibly resist it any more than the record companies could resist MP3s. Besides, I think this is a good thing for our industry in the long term. There’s nothing that says Twitter can’t lead people to a subscription website, or an ad-supported website, or other ecommerce. Twitter won’t eliminate business models, but it, like so many other technological developments, might contribute to changing them considerably. Sharp publishers will find a way to prosper in this new world. The tired, the lazy, and the weak will be cleared out. In my experience, SIPA members tend to survive, and thrive, amid change (even if we don’t always enjoy the ride all the time).

Do you have any rules in place prohibiting reporters from talking about subjects they are working on stories for?
No, we don’t. At least not yet. We’re much more in the mode of encouraging our staff to try things and experiment.

What controls do you place on reporters for using social media?
User generated content is a tricky business under a Harvard Medical School banner – not just from a branding perspective, but we’re dealing with health information and not to be overly dramatic but there are potentially real life-or-death issues at stake. Everyone here is highly aware of this and respects the responsibility that we have to proceed with caution.

How can you, as a publisher, turn this risk into an opportunity?
We have a number of opportunities we’re pursuing. I think at least some will work out for us. Overall, I think people are consuming as much information as ever, probably more. But I think we may be reaching the point of saturation. That is going to place a growing premium on being concise and delivering value. The publisher that can deliver the greatest value in the most convenient and time- and cost-effective manner will win. To me it’s not a question of turning this risk into an opportunity, it’s whether you’re willing to risk not taking advantage of the enormous opportunities before us.

I do think there is a danger in the general media that journalists will get increasingly pinned to their desks and captive to the technically sophisticated, which is not necessarily a representational cross section of the populace. But, we already experience a similar effect in other ways. The overwhelming concentration of media in New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles means that stories that happen there are likely to get far more coverage than if that same story occurred in a out of the way city/state/country (out of sight, out of mind). And, of course, our news skews towards the visual. Big developments happen in this world, but a car accident, plane crash, burning building, shouting protestors, or other similar spectacles get much more airtime than a budget hearing.

What do you think?