[lordfoom]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect journalists to be represented by PR firms online.

Given she's the BBC's disinformation specialist, it's also not reasonable to expect her to stay off social media.

[Jensson]

> Given she's the BBC's disinformation specialist, it's also not reasonable to expect her to stay off social media.

Why not? Why should every journalist be professionally active on Twitter? There is no reason why every journalist should be active on Twitter, they could just stop. I don't think anything bad would happen from that, rather I would even expect that the quality of articles would improve if journalists didn't obsess over Twitter so much.

Can you explain why she absolutely have to be active and post on social media on a professional account? I don't see it, she can research disinformation and write articles even if she isn't active and commenting on events in real time on Twitter.

[nix23]

Since she works for BBC, there is no point to throw your real name into a social network, and representing not just you but also the BBC.

If you want to brag about your work especially as a "disinformation specialist" be prepared for some stormy waters.

[_red]

>BBC's disinformation specialist

aka. Propagandist

[juanani]

Specialist sounds like they need someone with a thicker skin for that role. Most 'social media' roles are filled with snowflakes anyway, staffing failure. Stay offline.

[soco]

This kind of discourse sounds very much alike to the school yard bully calling others "snowflakes". Where do we draw the line on abusive language? Should it be totally accepted online and only in school yards banned? Should it be allowed everywhere? Should we allow the president mock people with disabilities? "Stick and stones can break my bones but words never harm me" sounds a bit antiquated nowadays but should we come back to that age of disrespect for the others, only because it's not physical?

[fnord123]

I think you didn't read the article.