Poynter.org:
Every so often a journalist draws criticism for something he retweeted. And whether that criticism is justified or not, it discourages some journalists from using Twitter effectively.
Jeff Sonderman outlines the way that journalists are now using Twitter to retweet information, and some of the pitfalls each of the methods has when it comes to erasing the appearance of bias.
Ultimately, Sonderman suggests a new class of retweets for journalists and others who want to relay information on Twitter without specifically endorsing or offering the appearance of an endorsement: a “neutral retweet.”
It’s an interesting concept. But in practical terms, I doubt even that is enough to dissuade some readers with an axe to grind to assume the journalist has a bias, anyway.
“Bias” is the wrong focus. There is no such thing as mirror-like objectivity, so better to admit and disclose bias, then apply good journalism practices to offset it. Fairness is a better and more realistic goal for journalists than objectivity.
” I doubt even that is enough to dissuade some readers with an axe to grind to assume the journalist has a bias, anyway.”
And to look at it from the other direction, the act of pressing a “neutral re-tweet” button is no evidence of neutrality anyway.
Evidence of neutrality or bias is based on reputation and long term experience in reading a journalist’s work. There ain’t no shortcut for that.
Welcome to the Internet: Where everyone has an opinion, but heaven forbid you express it in any way, for fear that someone will not agree with it – and bitch to no end.