Journalists and social media: a volatile employment mix

The recent sacking of two SBS reporters for posting material on their social media pages which reflected negatively on their employer raises the wider issue of journalists' use of social media.

Specifically can their employers hold them accountable for it? Or should journalists enjoy some form of exemption in the name of freedom of speech?

It is becoming commonplace in industry for employees to be dismissed after inappropriate posts on social media, such as attacking bosses or fellow workers, and there's no doubt employers now have little tolerance for staff using their social media to badmouth the business or post comments that reflect badly on the business.

But should this apply to journalists who are often outspoken and generate debate through provocative remarks? Should journalists be an exception?

Recent examples suggest not. SBS reporter Scott McIntyre was fired after an anti-Anzac tirade and shortly after, another SBS reporter, Marion Ives, was sacked after re-posting another person's article critical of her employer on her Facebook.

There's a question here on whether an employer should have the power to take action against a staff member for remarks posted on that person's social media pages?

Many employers have social media policies in place, principally designed to protect the name and reputation of the business.

Increasingly employers are trawling social media posts catching out staff bad mouthing a boss or supervisor or saying things that create a negative image of the business. The latter is an especially sensitive issue for journalists who the public expect to be objective at all times.

I think journalists in particular need to have a reality check against venting on social media forums because a rant could cost them their job. Despite their profile and "fame", they are legally just another employee and subject to the same workplace laws as someone in a factory or any workplace.

A Texan child care worker recently made world headlines for all the wrong reasons. Kaitlyn Walls was fired before she even started her new job at a day care centre after she posted a Facebook rant saying she absolutely hated working at day cares and really hated being around a lot of kids.

People who saw the post dobbed her in and the daycare centre boss sacked her before she arrived at work.

In Australia, SBS reporters Scott McIntyre and Marion Ives are the media casualties of hard-line employer attitudes toward social media use here.

McIntyre, an SBS soccer reporter, attracted nationwide fury after posting a series of hostile anti-Anzac tweets on Anzac Day which cast a slur on the Anzacs and Australia's involvement in the world wars.

His Tweets included "Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these 'brave' Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan" and "Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki."

SBS Managing Director Michael Ebeid and Director of Sport Ken Shipp were reported as saying McIntyre had breached the station's Code of Conduct and social media policy.

In a statement they said: "Late on Anzac Day, sports presenter Scott McIntyre made highly inappropriate and disrespectful comments via his twitter account which have caused his on-air position at SBS to become untenable.

"Mr McIntyre's actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy and as a result, SBS has taken decisive action to terminate Mr McIntyre's position at SBS, with immediate effect.

"At SBS, employees on and off air are encouraged to participate in social media, however maintaining the integrity of the network and audience trust is vital. It is unfortunate that on this very important occasion, Mr McIntyre's comments have compromised both".

Rather than go quietly, McIntyre has since launched legal action, suing SBS for discrimination. His lawsuit alleges that SBS breached its policies, including its Code of Conduct and did not follow due process when it dismissed him.

McIntyre's legal people are invoking Section 351 of the Fair Work Act which protects employees from adverse action by their employer (including sacking) if they express political opinion.

Are journalists therefore protected? And if not, should they be?

The history of journalism is signposted with examples of crusading reporters whose forcefully expressed views went beyond mere words on a page. Scott McIntyre could pause in his Anzac Day rant and consider that journalists Keith Murdoch and Ellis Ashmead- Bartlett were instrumental in influencing Britain to abandon its ill-fated Gallipoli campaign in 1915.

Decades later American reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein became media superstars for their coverage of the Watergate scandal in America which ultimately brought down President Nixon in August 1974.

Social media has revolutionised modern mass media communications and journalists have embraced social media with a passion that sometimes blurs the lines between objective reporting and pushing their own opinions on every issue in the news.

But what if a reporter merely re-posts someone else's words on their Facebook page, something critical of their employer which the journalist may feel is worth sharing?

SBS reporter Marion Ives, must be pondering that point as she too was sacked after allegedly re-posting another person's article on her Facebook which criticised SBS policies.

Ives, who worked for SBS as a presenter for nearly seven years, was dismissed after she posted an article written by former Dateline presenter Helen Vatsikopoulos for The Conversation on her Facebook wall.

In the piece, Vatsikopoulos criticised a watering down of the SBS charter and its obligations of "meeting the communications needs of Australia's multicultural society, including ethnic, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities". In particular the article addressed the case of an Iraqi-born SBS journalism cadet, who was declined a job with SBS upon the completion of her cadetship.

Ives posted the article on her Facebook with a comment "I've admired Helen Vatsikopoulos' work for a long time, and I found her perspective on many aspects interesting. But I'm not going to risk breaching SBS' social media policy by commenting further - I'll leave that to others".

Nevertheless SBS acted, though it did not link her effective sacking to Ives' post. In McIntyre's case, SBS cited a breach of its social media guidelines, which dictate that "when communicating in either a professional or personal manner, do not act in ways likely to bring yourself or SBS into disrepute".

The guidelines also touch on the blended world of private and professional actions on social media, stipulating that "the SBS audience may not be able to distinguish when an employee is acting in an official capacity on behalf of SBS or when social media use is personal".

You could apply that concern across the board, to encompass all journalists in all media especially if you factor in the concept of social media now as no longer just social.

Social media began as a friendly way to share one's life with family and friends but increasingly people are using it as a soapbox to whinge about politics, work and the boss.

Journalists in Australia love social media and use it extensively but the recent SBS examples suggest they may not fully appreciate their obligations to their employers and the public's expectations of them.

Employers across Australia are realising that social media comment from their staff could generate a negative image of the business.

It's not about employers trying to suppress an employee's contact with friends and family but increasingly the social media comment can also reflect on the staff member's opinions of their workplace and employers. They're crossing a line in the sand here.

In the wider workforce we hear of employees who run afoul of the boss when posting on social media about their wild weekends after they threw a sickie from work, and seem baffled when they realise the employer has seen the post and dismissed them.

The Queensland Ambulance Service has a team that scours the internet and sends employees please explain messages such as why you said or disclosed this, or how come you were off sick, but attended this social function as shown on Facebook?"

Social media is like the wild west, un controlled and sometimes dangerous. So-called privacy settings can mean nothing. If someone can access your social media posts they can share them with others.

Social media posts that lead to sudden sackings are not exclusive to journalists. I had a case of an Ambulance officer who posted a photo of a broken leg on Facebook, the patient wasn't identifiable but the officer was sacked for breaching that patient's privacy.

Another case, a different employer, was where a man had a Gym business as well as his day job. He had a day off work sick and went to a function for his Gym, and someone put his photo on Facebook and the date. He was sacked as a result of this.

We have also had various cases of people sacked for criticising their boss publicly via social media posts.

So against this trend how should media employers behave and more importantly what should their journalists take from the trend of employers coming down hard on critical social media posts?

Anyone using social media needs to think hard about what they are saying and any possible consequences of their posts.

If it relates to your job, then don't bad mouth the boss because it could come back on you. If you have a sick day don't put up posts about your social activities when you told the boss you were too sick to work.

For journalists, consider whether your social media posts may be misread by others as implying that you are speaking for your media employer.

Media organisations, indeed all employers, need to have well-considered social media use policies and ensure all staff are fully aware of what they can say in regards to their working life as opposed to truly social activities.

Using social media as a soapbox may play to a journalist's wish to inject their own opinions into an issue but as we have seen, it carries risks.

If your remarks could be seen as blurring the line between your work and your private views, then in these situations social media is not your friend.