Why the “watch what you say online” crowd is a festering anachronism

I don’t know Sarah Soczka, but if I ever meet her, I’m going to buy her a beer. Sarah is the unwitting victim of the “watch what you say online” crowd, specifically one Jeff Bentoff, APR, of Bentoff, LLC from Wisconsin. Bentoff writes in the June issue of the Public Relations Society of America’s TACTICS newsletter about “A cautionary Twitter tale: Young professional learns a tweet lesson.”

Bentoff details the story of how Soczka wrote a brief and, in my opinion, relatively milquetoast blog post on her own blog, and presumably on her own time, about why Newshub (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) is better than BizJournalMke (Milwaukee Business Journal). She was clear to say the post and her blog and Twitter account represent her own views.

Nevertheless, Bentoff writes:

“Her blog posting might have gone unnoticed, but bringing attention to it via Twitter was like throwing birdseed into a bird’s nest.

“Only 10 minutes after Soczka posted to her Twitter account, the Journal Sentinel’s main Twitter writer retweeted the item and headline to its many followers.”

Bentoff admits that Soczka was correct in her post, and he makes efforts to praise her as “a social media natural” … “who is fluent and comfortable with the tools.” His tone ends up as chastising, however, and what he does to Soczka next is a classic case of shooting the messenger.

He recounts:

“The twittering crescendo quickly reached the ears of Mark Kass, the Milwaukee Business Journal’s editor. Kass said that his first reaction was, ‘Who is she, and why did she do this?’ He added that he agreed with the points that she made on her blog, but was disappointed that she hadn’t contacted him before posting. Kass said that had she done so, he would have explained that his paper had started tweeting two weeks before and had already made plans for reporter tweets in the style Soczka advocated for.”

Kass’ initial, ad hominem reaction of “Who is she?” is alarming coming from someone in the news business. The news media regularly defends itself as reporters of information against those who blame journalists for the impact of putting out the news and commentary. That’s what basically what Soczka was doing: commenting on the use of social media by newbs, ineffective use of social media being so omnipresent that it’s a wonder Soczka wasn’t harsher. For Kass’ first response to be of the shoot-the-messenger variety puts his own credibility in question.

Next, there is no reason whatsoever that Soczka should have contacted the Milwaukee Business Journal prior to posting. Commentary legitimately does not require letting parties have a “fair” say prior to publication. The news media certainly wouldn’t do this; why should a blogger? Kass’ response is more about his own ego than about anything Soczka wrote.

What happens next is even more telling. Back to Bentoff:

“Kass said that he didn’t think Soczka was fair with her comments in comparing a new Twitter feed with a mature one. After hearing about the tweets, Kass also contacted Soczka’s supervisor and the three of them met so that he could explain the Business Journal’s plans to her.”

Let’s get this straight. Kass expects to be notified before anyone writes something potentially negative about his use of Twitter but then goes to the messenger’s supervisor, who has nothing to do with this issue, so he can “explain” his social media plan?

There is only one reason that Kass approached Soczka’s supervisor and that was to put her on notice. It was a veiled threat and a way for him to put the practitioner in her proper place with a subtext that says, “How dare you criticize me.”

Put another way: Reporters frequently don’t extend polite courtesies to PR people (I have vivid memories of being verbally bullied by a belligerent, screaming reporter leveling all sorts of his personal allegations at me on one occasion, along with a number of other examples), and its erroneous to assume that kissing reporters’ asses will get you very far. Prompt, polite responses, useful information, access to the right sources, yes. Gratuitous niceties, no.

Lest we forget: Journalists in general consider PR people a necessary evil. Anyone who has been in the business awhile, especially in public sector communications, knows it’s not uncommon for an “official” perspective to be looked upon with far more scrutiny than, say, that of an accuser, protester or any other kind of agitator. This all in fairness, of course.

This situation raises another critical point that gets little attention; the change in culture as a consequence of social media. Social media reduces the need for a middleman and conversations are open to the world. While this means caution should be exercised, it also means there is an emerging acceptance and acknowledgement of online behavior previously viewed as taboo, behaviors that arise because of the nature of who we are as humans and because this is how we now communicate.

In addition, the public relations profession mandates the free flow of information. Nowhere to date but in social media can this happen so effectively. The free flow of information also means not all information is first created equal and, second, will be interpreted the same way among publics. Because of this, along with the reality that PR people are blogging all over the place, we finally get to voice our concerns, perspectives and opinions. This is something to be celebrated, especially in an industry that prior to new media had far less of a voice. Bloggers are supposed to be provocative; PR people should weigh in on the effective use of media, even if they are critical. We’ve tolerated enough of the cheeky, third-grade level pedantic commentary from our local media sources. It’s time we had our say.

On the flipside, there’s plenty of room for outlining consequences and, most importantly, developing skills for handling inevitable crises and controversies. The problem isn’t that controversies arise; the problem is how they are frequently mishandled. Sure, PR people should be vigilant about what they say online and elsewhere, but it’s a basic error to attempt to enforce a bogus professional morality in professions – news reporting, PR – that inherently don’t play by the same rules and do not extend mutually equitable courtesies.

Sarah Soczka: You deserve a raise. The main thing you need to be vigilant about is which of the anachronistic views that come your way are actually worth a listen. Keep blazing trails, my friend.

POSTSCRIPT

Just before hitting publish, I went to the Milwaukee Business Journal’s Twitter account. True to Soczka’s original criticism posted in February, the Business Journal’s Twitter follows nobody and merely posts news back to its own site. It has 671 followers. If Kass agreed with Soczka’s point, as he claimed, it might behoove him to do something about it, like he said he was going to. I’m now even more baffled as to why Bentoff wrote this “cautionary tale” in the first place when Kass and the Business Journal, especially in contrast with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Twitter, are enacting what we involved with social media refer to as an “epic fail.”

[EDIT 1:41 p.m.: I was just informed that the Business Journal has a number of reporters who Twitter, including the editor, Mark Kass. Please consider this in the context of the above statement. I apologize for jumping the gun about the Journal's social media use without checking it out first. -Bob.]