Microsoft Creative Director Adam Orth Reminds Us All of the Perils of Twitter

It happens so quickly — one moment you’re publicly defending the controversial features of an unannounced project from the major technology company you work for, the next moment you’re resigning from your job at that same company. At least, that’s what happened to Microsoft Creative Director Adam Orth.

Multiple reports have confirmed that Orth, who recently incited a flame war by saying that anyone upset over the idea of an “always online” console should just “deal with it,” and insulted rural America to boot, is no longer an employee at Microsoft.

How did this happen? It’s a classic case of the social media illusion of security. Orth was really just having a conversation with his friend, Bioware’s Manveer Heir, and they both forgot for a moment that they were high-ranking employees at heavily scrutinized companies. Like the random person who complains about their boss on Facebook while forgetting that they are actually friends with that boss, Orth just forgot that people might be listening.

In his case, it was about as bad as it could be — not only was he inciting rage by appearing insensitive about a topic that could be vital to the success of the Xbox, he was tacitly admitting both the existence of the next Xbox and the idea that it will be “always connected — ” two things Microsoft has yet to do.

Adam Orth isn’t a middle school student, which would probably excuse his behavior on Twitter. But he makes it clear that we could all still use a lesson in social media. If it’s on Twitter, people are going to see it. If you’re worried that people might see it, people are going to see it. Every once in a while, people seem to need to be reminded of this.

As for the next Xbox, Microsoft can’t announce it soon enough. Incidents like this make it clear that pre-announcement chatter can be quite dangerous for a company’s public image. Without any concrete details, people assume the worst, often quite loudly. Microsoft still might have some time to reconfigure potentially unpopular features, however, so maybe all the uproar could sway some choices.

Does anything on the Internet where it is reasonably possible for a third party to figure out what your real full name is also count as a "public broadcast medium?"

Does anything on the Internet where it is reasonably possible for a third party to figure out what your real full name is also count as a "public broadcast medium?"

Yes, it's public, but the public's retarded. People should learn the difference between someone making a professional opinion and an off-the-cuff statement. And if they can't, they should ask.

I'm gonna keep running with the endorsement thing a second. Look at Tiger Woods, before and after the whole "I can't keep it in my pants" fiasco. How many sponsors dropped him? He's a brand, and other brands - say Nike - either do or don't want to affiliate their brand with Tiger's.

Kristof is also a brand, and he's as associable with NYT as Woods is with PGA golf. He can't say anything, in any accessible medium, without it being viewed through the lens of "that dude who writes editorials for the Times". Fair or not, they're inseparable, and that's why people get canned for sullying their own brand and then their employers' by association.

Tiger Woods lost his endorsement deals because the public is retarded. His infidelity has nothing to do with his ability to play golf. That said, freedom of association dictates what athlete gets supported, what sponsors see revenue increases, and what sponsors decide to do about such events.

Tiger Woods lost his endorsement deals because the public is retarded.

Twitter is a real-time information network that connects you to the latest stories, ideas, opinions and news about what you find interesting.

Colleagues,

As we continue to expand our efforts in social media, here’s a reminder of the longstanding Times principles that apply to our journalists and other newsroom staff members. As you know, we’ve deliberately kept our guidance broad and simple.

First, we should always treat Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms as public activities. Regardless of your privacy controls or the size of your follower list, anything you post online can easily be shared with a wider audience.

And second, you are a Times journalist, and your online behavior should be appropriate for a Times journalist. Readers will inevitably associate anything you post on social media with The Times.

Those two basic principles should be enough to guide us in most situations. Be thoughtful. Take care that nothing you say online will undercut your credibility as a journalist. Newsroom staff members should avoid editorializing or promoting political views. And we should be civil – even to critics – and avoid personal attacks and offensive remarks.

While the terrain may be new, these principles are not. Our Ethical Journalism policy says this about dealing with the public:

We treat our readers no less fairly in private than in public. Anyone who deals with readers is expected to honor that principle, knowing that ultimately the readers are our employers. Civility applies whether an exchange takes place in person, by telephone, by letter or online.

Or, as the policy suggests elsewhere: When in doubt, ask yourself if a given action might damage The Times’s reputation. If so, it’s probably a bad idea.

As with all of our ethics guidelines, these principles also apply to freelancers in connection with their work for The Times. Readers do not distinguish among bylines, and regular contributors in particular are closely associated with The Times. Editors have a responsibility to ensure that freelancers understand their obligation to protect The Times’s reputation.

Please feel free to consult me if you have any questions.

Thanks.

Phil

Nitefox:

Apparently none of that matters and my annoyance at Mr. Kristof's unprofessional behavior is unwarranted and unreasonable according to people here at the Glade.

Apparently none of that matters and my annoyance at Mr. Kristof's unprofessional behavior is unwarranted and unreasonable according to people here at the Glade.

"People here at the Glade" ... seems a bit exaggerative. You're arguing against a slightly vocal minority.