Twitter isn't the biggest social-media company by number of users, but is the most influential among newsmakers and the journalists
who cover them. It's also become a source of friction between reporters and editors charged with enforcing the social-media polices of their newsrooms.
The most recent example
was at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, whose leaders were accused of removing a black journalist from covering protests after she had tweeted a joking remark about looting.
On May 31, reporter Alexis Johnson posted several pictures of a trash-strewn parking lot with the comment: "Horrifying scenes and aftermath from selfish LOOTERS who don't care about this
city!!!!! .... oh wait sorry. No, these are pictures from a Kenny Chesney concert tailgate. Whoops."
Twitter users shared the post more than 56,000 times, ensuring that
thousands of others saw it. Her editors later told her she had violated the newspaper's social-media policy and removed her from covering protests in response to the killing of George Floyd, CNN
reported.
I can understand why the
Post-Gazette's editors would have objected to the tweet.
advertisement
advertisement
Joking about looting during a period of civic unrest, racial
tensions and calls to end police brutality is insensitive to people's real suffering. Suggesting that looters are no worse than country-music fans who litter a parking lot misses the point.
What's less clear is whether the
Post-Gazette management is racially biased against Johnson, who said a white male colleague had violated the social-media policy but wasn't
reprimanded as severely,
CNN reported. It's a strong accusation, and I would hope that
the newspaper's editors aren't singling out Johnson because they're racist.
The conflict underscores the need to be transparent with the enforcement of social-media policies,
perhaps through the combined efforts of management, reporters and possibly their union representation.
Otherwise, the uneven implementation of those rules will invite charges that they're
unfair, discriminatory and a symptom of more sinister bias.