BBC bosses are warning journalists their desire to “go viral” on Twitter could be undermining impartiality rules.
The broadcaster’s head of standards, David Jordan, said sometimes reporters did not uphold BBC guidelines on “toxic” social media.
He said some journalists have been disciplined by senior staff over their content amid concerns they have “overstepped the mark”.
The BBC commissioned a review on how reporters and media organisations use websites, which is expected to be published in months.
Jordan is leading the review, and told the Lord Communications and Digital Committee yesterday that impartiality did not always thrive on social media.
READ MORE: BBC to axe TV licences for over-75s after virus delay
Jordan said: “We have had issues about the use of social media in the BBC where people have not adhered to our standards or have overstepped the mark.
“We have had issues, for example, about tracking the rise of Eurosceptism. Across the BBC, did we do that adequately? No, we didn't.
“We had issues around tracking the growth of concern about immigration.
“I hope we've learned from those experiences and we are applying them now to making sure we do understand what people right across the country in every part of the UK think.”
To address the issue, the corporation has appointed Cardiff University journalism professor Richard Sambrook to help boost impartiality and accuracy online.
Political editor Laura Kuenssberg and journalist Andrew Neil are among those whose social media content has sparked criticism.
Kuenssberg received complaints when during the row about Dominic Cummings, the PM’s top adviser, breaking lockdown rules, she publicly tweeted the Mirror journalist who broke the story suggesting she had her facts wrong.
Jordan went on: “The way social media has developed in recent times - particularly Twitter - has become more adversarial, more argumentative, more combative, more opinionated, more polarised and sometimes actually rather toxic.
“And it can suck people in. The immediacy of it can be alluring, the live dynamics of it can be seductive to some people who find themselves caught up in it, and it can become almost addictive for some of our journalists.
“We have had issues about the use of social media in the BBC where people have not adhered to our standards or have overstepped the mark. We have asked Richard Sambrook to take a good look at what we’re doing and come up with some thoughts about how we should properly use [social media] in this new atmosphere and to the best advantage of the BBC.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel