In terms of the Tweet, I think that just as users of Twitter have to be careful what we say (everyone is always listening), companies have to avoid the temptation of reacting from the gut based on a Tweet or an isolated post. In the case of Twitter, it’s impossible to know a lot of the time what the full context is for any given comment. Maybe someone is participating in “Sarcasm Day” on Twitter. We have to make sure that before we infringe on someone’s job status or freedom of speech, we understand the full and exact ramifications of what *actually* was being said.

I have watched CNN since its debut in 1980. From 1983-1997 I lived in remote areas of the US (Anchorage, AK and North Conway, NH). Yes, I said remote. The only live television in Anchorage in the early 80s was the news and let’s just say when I moved to NH in late 1985 there was limited cable TV in northern NH, so we relied on CNN. My guess is that somewhere along the line I “enjoyed” Octavia Nasr’s work. I couldn’t tell you when or what story, so to me that means that she did her job well. Dave Weigel I have only come to recognize because of the story about his leaving the Washington Post. I am sure I must have seen him on MSNBC. It is interesting that he is younger than CNN and he has already had to leave a position at the Washington Post, a paper that most came to know and respect because of two young determined journalists back in 1972.

Lisa, I don’t know what the “right” thing to do is in these circumstances. I know that I wish we could all feel free to share our backgrounds, beliefs, heritage without risking our lives and livelihoods; but that would be a perfect world. Many journalists/writers were targets of the McCarthy hearings, the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the FBI, and who knows what goes on today.

Just recently I read an article about Ted Kopple. Back in early 1980 we welcomed him into our homes each evening with Nightline. He kept us up to date on the Iran Hostage Crisis. But even though I watched him for the next 25 years, I never knew that he was of Jewish heritage nor did I remember that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) investigated his reporting bias. Go figure! To this I will add, that while I watched Mike Wallace (born the same year as my parents-1918) for almost 40 years on 60 Minutes, I never knew about his heritage…I just felt he always tried to do in depth provocative investigative reporting.

My best anecdote about not knowing of someone’s heritage and potential bias has to do with Ralph Nader. Growing up I think most of us appreciated Mr. Nader’s willingness to speak out about issues, he was and probably still is one of the best consumer advocates. But it was not until the 2008 election that I learned of his Lebanese heritage and that Arabic was his first language. He ran for president four times, and it was not until the last election that I have any recollection of someone “discussing” his heritage. Suddenly it became important?

Maybe gone are the times when journalists keep their ethnic heritage, religious affiliation, marital status, and political party memberships undercover. If someone blows their cover or gently lifts the veil with a tweet, blog, or old emails, should it be grounds for firing or pressuring one to resign? My guess is that in the news business employment contracts cover this topic thoroughly. I think this debate is going to continue. You and Roger Dooley went back and forth about reporting and offering an OP-ED. I think back to Eric Sevareid . We eagerly listened to his two minute opinion segments on the CBS Evening News, but even he was investigated by the FBI.

Could it be that the media outlets have become totally controlled by their bottom-line and viewer/reader and employee be damned? Or has it always been this way and social media is just allowing all of us to easily easvesdrop on the newsroom?

In regards to why mainstream media has such fear paranoia for controversy is the possibility of lost advertisers. Considering their business models are already on shaky ground, they are forced to try and keep any and all revenue they can get. And although they ARE media, I’m sure their executives have all the same misconceptions and disillusions about “new media” that 95% of brands currently have. *thank you Fast Company*

Although I fully disagree with mainstream media using the authentic voices and individuals as front-and-center guinea pigs, the thing I find most interesting is how they are still testing new media theories, but almost in ‘stealth mode’. By repurposing ‘fellow journalists’ content in areas that have less visibility and risk, they are able to get away with not putting their name on it – which isn’t right, but makes all the difference.

The most recent example I have seen was just yesterday by guess who — CNN.com. I posted my quick thoughts on my Posterous page. Although it was a small feature and I shouldn’t be surprised, it still pisses me off to see the so-called industry leaders talking from both sides of their mouth. What’s that saying I always hate to hear when it’s directed towards me? Oh yeah.. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

My sentiments exactly. A journalist has to adopt the views of the media organization they are working for? The news is suppose to be unbiased, but I’ve yet to find one that is. There are two sides to every story, but the majority of the time, all we hear is one.

And I think that some bias will inevitably creep in. If I was reporting on a convention of psychic readers , for example, I doubt if I would produce the same article as a reporter who believed in such things, even if we both did our best to be neutral.

IMO, the covert bias comes not from misrepresentation of facts, but rather more subtle factors: which facts make it into the story, how is the headline worded, which items deserve comments from a dissenting voice, and so on. I wouldn’t write the psychic story without including commentary from skeptics and scientists. (I would argue that any story about psychics should point out to readers that no scientific proof for such phenomena exists, and I was merely producing a balanced story.) If the psychics knew of my disbelief (and, being psychic, surely they would!), they would cry foul and claim I wrote the story merely to discredit them with third party comments. One person’s balance is another person’s bias.

That’s kind of a silly example, but assign an overt liberal to write a story about a conservative issue (or vice-versa) and the same thing would likely occur.

Journalists aren’t robots (not yet!) and should be allowed to have their own opinions. Saying that, I also think that journalists should be careful about what they are saying. I’m bothered by all media outlets that seem to have a particular side they lean on and don’t appear to be objective at all. It’s a very fine line.