His master’s tweet: What TOI’s new social media policy means

If you prefer to keep separate accounts, please inform your brand representative of your personal accounts’ usernames. But it will be in YOUR interest to keep one user account.’

Employees are still unwilling to play ball, but given the fact that TOI, being the behemoth it is, has in the past instituted many hard-to-swallow policies like medianet (a service that allows companies and celebrities to pay for favourable content published in the newspaper’s supplements), journalists working with every media organisation may soon have to take permission from employers to tweet or post views on social media.

It is interesting how another top-dog newspaper, which routinely fights TOI for the number one slot in readership surveys, had put out a series of articles on the evils of medianet when the Times group introduced it, but embraced the practice of selling editorial space soon after. Now, this is standard practice in many newspapers. Same may happen with social media policy of most media houses.   

Nairita Mukherjee, who worked with the Times of India’s Mumbai edition till recently, says: ‘Well, it’s ridiculous. Of course it leaves the employees with little or no dignity. But then, when was there any to begin with!’

Another former employee feels this is too bizarre to believe. ‘As far as I know no official circular has been sent out and hence this debate is in the realm of speculation. This decree cannot be passed in the way it has been reported as it infringes upon the freedom of speech,’ says Saumya Pant, who worked with the TOI’s Delhi edition till last year.

In the fast changing landscape of news media, presence on Twitter and Facebook is increasingly becoming important as editors and reporters often break stories on social media first and then on their respective television channels, news sites or newspapers. Organisations have by and large encouraged such practice once you put out the disclaimer that views expressed are your own and should not be ascribed to your employer. But there’s a downside to this. What happens when you put out wrong information or, worse, something disparaging against the media house you work for?

In recent past, an India TV anchor, updated her Facebook status minutes before consuming poison. In her Facebook status, she wrote, ‘Last gudbye to all of you! I am committing suicide. Thanks to India TV…’ If the channel had her password, the post could have been instantly deleted.

Some journalists I spoke to, who for obvious reasons did not wish to be named, said from flaky contracts to unspecified work hours to sexual harassment cases that are not allowed to go public, many media houses have enough dirt on them that they would wish to keep away from social media. A tight control over what employees are posting therefore becomes a necessity.  

Some would call this cyber bullying. ‘While Hindu telling employees to refrain from sharing news from other publications is understandable, ToI has gone a step further and made this bizarre announcement. A journalist’s identity is more his/her own on social channels rather than the publication they are attached to. People follow Barkha Dutt or Rajdeep Sardesai for their views and leadership qualities, not for the news channel they are associated with. ToI asking for passwords, or forcing to open new accounts is a form of cyber bullying. They neither have any idea of how social media works, nor do know how to handle their employees. They need help,’ says Sanjib Chakravorty, founder/chief strategist at SocialF5, a social media marketing and 

management company. 

Writer Ruchi Kokcha who tweets from the handle @mymightymind agrees. "Preventing employees from posting inside stuff is one thing, attacking their personal space is another. Asking for password of personal account is not only dictatorial but also intruding. While most corporate companies time and again remind employees to keep the private/public duality intact, BCCL, antithetically, appropriates its employees’ personal space by posting on their behalf, even after they leave the company. This is very unbecoming of a media house which should actually be the vanguard of the personal freedom of the masses."