• You should conduct yourself in social media forums with an eye to how your behavior or comments might appear if we were called upon to defend them as a news organization. In other words, don’t behave any differently online than you would in any other public setting.
• You must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online. This extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org.
• Your simple participation in some online groups could be seen to indicate that you endorse their views. Consider whether you can accomplish your purposes by just observing a group’s activity, rather than becoming a member. If you do join, be clear that you’ve done so to seek information or story ideas. And if you “friend” or join a group representing one side of an issue, do so for a group representing the competing viewpoint, when reasonable to do so.

Ten days ago a freelance host for National Public Radio here in the US was relieved of her duties because she helped organize an Occupy Wall Street-esque protest in Washington D.C.

Lisa Simeone, who is a freelancer for one show called “Soundprint”, and the host of “World of Opera” was fired for her participation in the Occupy DC movement.
There’s a been a bit of outcry over her firing – especially since she is not a formal NPR employee, and the two shows she’s involved with, have nothing to do with news.

She was fired from one show, “Soundprint” because the production company adopted NPR’s code of ethics.

But Simeone’s work on “The World of Opera”, which is a WDAV (a North Carolina-based NPR affiliate) production, but distributed to over 60 other affiliates by NPR, has caused the most trouble.

The radio station would not fire Simeone. So, because NPR has no power to order their affiliate station to fire/hire someone, they just stopped distributing the “World of Opera”.

Simeone said this to the Associated Press:

• “I don’t cover news. In none of the shows that I do, do I cover the news,” she told the AP. “What is NPR afraid I’ll do? Insert a seditious comment into a synopsis of ‘Madame Butterfly?’

Another example is Natasha Lennard, a freelancer for the New York Times, who was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge almost a month ago while she was covering the Occupy Wall Street protests for the Times.

She was recently removed from covering the story after video of her speaking “somewhat sympathetically” at a panel about the protests.

The New York Times has flirted with the public perception of being “too liberal” for a while. And while the perception is more or less correct, one has to wonder the cause of it.

Is it so much the fault of staff and editors, or just the fact that to survive in an increasingly tough market, one has to write and report for an audience, which in the case of the Times, is extraordinarily liberal.

There is thought that these, what some would call knee-jerk, reactions are themselves reactionary responses to allegations from public (sometimes not even their own readers or subscribers), and in NPR’s case, government, scrutiny of journalism.

There was an interesting live chat on Poynter last week about if it’s actually a big deal for us journalists to share our opinions. Anyone one who has been in a newsroom, or frequents the bar with their journofriends, knows that we’re a pretty opinionated lot – but just not in the public eye (unless its about ourselves ex: Johann Hari).

It’s impossible to be without bias, but as a reporter we’re trained to, and should always, approach our work with a dedicated and committed method of objectively viewing and disseminating information.

But has there ever been, or will there ever be, a business model that can truly foster that objectivism without bowing to outside pressure from readers and critics alike? Is this idea of objectivity just a fool’s errand in what is pretty much a perpetually cyclical debate of self-policing and outside scrutiny?

There are a lot more questions in this post than answers, as this is a subject that can never seem to have one fool-proof and definitive answer.

What do you think? Where does our voice belong? Is the American media just overzealous and holier than thou? Did I drink too much coffee (four cups) while writing this?

Comment below or tweet us @wannabehacks