Hearst Magazines introduced a new social media policy this week that encourages staff to rat out colleagues to management over posts that could violate company rules.
The Washington Post reported that the publishing giant sent staff members an email on Monday announcing the new restrictions, along with an internal document detailing them further that the company requested employees sign.
“We should be careful to consider the impact that a controversial statement on a hot-button issue may have on Hearst’s reputation,” the policy reads, according to a copy of the document obtained by the Post.
The new policy follows controversial statements about the Israel-Hamas war by an editor at one of Hearst’s publications last month. Samira Nasr, the editor in chief of Hearst-owned Harper’s Bazaar, posted about Israel’s decision to cut water and power to Gaza on her Instagram stories, calling it “the most inhuman thing I’ve seen in my life.” According to the New York Post, she later apologized and Hearst pledged $300,000 to charities working in the region.
While the new rules don’t specifically mention the Middle Eastern conflict, they do advise staff members that social media posts that don’t meet Hearst’s editorial standards “should not be posted on social media, whether on a Hearst account or a personal one.”
In response, the Writers Guild of America, East — the union that represents Hearst editorial staffers — filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday, the Post reported. The union said the social media policy should have been negotiated with the guild and urged employees not to sign the policy consent form.
“Hearst is declaring that our channels for personal expression are company property, even when we’re off the clock,” the union said in a statement.
Hearst’s social media rules reportedly apply to personal, as well as professional, accounts and give managers the authority to demand employees delete “objectionable” content. Simply “liking” or reposting something is also considered a violation of the rules, according to the document.
“Just because you didn’t say something on social media and instead only ‘liked’ it or reposted it, it still may suggest to our audience that you approve of a particular statement or view,” the policy states.
Although staffers could be fired for violations, the policy doesn’t provide examples of material that would be considered breaking the rules.
It also warns that posts about “apolitical” or local topics can rapidly become fraught.
“Many social movements are politically charged, and apolitical events and movements can quickly become controversial and political,” the policy reads. “Even local community organizations can become politicized.”
In what the union called a “frighteningly authoritarian flourish,” staff members are encouraged to rat out their co-workers to management for social media rule-breaking or any other conduct that could “impact the reputation or objectivity of Hearst Magazines.”
“It feels like a drastic overreach on the part of our parent company,” Lizz Schumer, a senior editor and union shop steward at Hearst-owned Good Housekeeping, told the Post.