A journalist’s Twitter nightmare

Last week, I found myself in a Twitter debate (is there any other kind these days?) with a Washington Post columnist about the perils of sharing opinions on social media when you’re a working journalist.

CNN correspondent Diana Magnay had been exiled to Siberia (Moscow, actually) for referring to Israeli rubberneckers who threatened her and cheered a Gaza missile strike as “scum.” Magnay said she was characterizing the harassment she endured, not the personal politics of one group wishing the demise of another. But, hey, when sponsors complain, reporters eat their swords.

Is the journalism industry really so afraid of its own clumsy humanity?

Yes. The columnist wrote that Magnay’s reassignment was the latest in an increasingly common occurrence: reporters getting punished for sentiments posted to social media.

It’s a bit of a double-edged sword, isn’t it? With dwindling advertising revenue, news organizations push their reporters to build “brands” and expand audiences. But don’t stray off message.

“Corporate cowardice” is how I termed it in the tweet that got this discussion rolling.

That’s not to say we reporters don’t say or post some dumbass things. Just ask celebrity curmudgeon Stephen A. Smith, whom ESPN pulled after he asked domestic-violence victims to consider ways they can prevent abuse. His suspension—and resulting apology—were indeed merited.

But there’s a fine line between reprimanding insensitivity like Smith’s and punishing human reactions like Magnay’s, especially when such actions have the whiff of appeasement about them.

A profession that wraps itself in the First Amendment shouldn’t duck from thoughtful provocation, or use the word “ethics” as a synonym for “business.”

“Well, aren’t ethics ultimately tied to business considerations?” the columnist tweeted. “Your value IS your integrity, credibility.”

Yes to the second, hell no to the first. There’s a reason that a literal wall exists between SN&R’s editorial and advertising departments, and it’s not just because our ad reps dress better. Financial considerations aren’t supposed to drive coverage, nor should they determine which reporters are sacrificed to reactionary mobs.

But there you go. We don’t live in the world of “supposed to,” as Magnay and the recipients of that missile attack can attest.