Wednesday, February 20, 2013

social media done right - canadian running magazine

Since I've been ranting a little too much about bad social media, I thought I'd give a tip of my hat to Canadian Running Magazine for getting social media right. (though I imagine some would say "mostly" right)

The other day, they tweeted that the Oscar Pistorias story just got "darker" when steroids were allegedly found in his home. I wasn't the only one who found this a little strange and responded with a comment that steroids aren't darker than death. Many people responded with "ummm...guys? how are steroids worse or darker than a woman dying?!?!" I immediately got a tweet back explaining that it was really poor word choice and that they were changing their headline and story.

Here's where the "mostly" right might come in. They deleted the original tweet (and I'm sad that I didn't save it - I just saved the path...which isn't valid anymore) and I think some would argue that they should leave it up - followed right up with the correction. But I don't have a big problem with what they did. This is a sensitive story,* they've changed their headline and removed the old one. So way to go Canadian Running! Thanks for being responsive!

In other news - I have a sore hamstring and it is driving me a little nuts. It likes to cramp and just be generally sore. So far it hurts mostly when I'm NOT running - so that's kind of nice, but I'm trying to figure out if I need to do more than just roll it and stretch it. Hopefully not.

What do you think about "scrubbing" after someone has said something stupid or inappropriate on the internet? Delete or no delete? And any other things I should be doing to help my hamstring?

*and not just sensitive...shocking to those of us who have only seen the previous media portrayals of Pistorius. 

3 comments:

Randy said...

On the Runner's World website their is a link to hamstring rehab.

Michael Doyle said...

Thanks for the complimentary words about the magazine and our social media presence. I am the one that both wrote the news item for our site, as well as the person primarily in charge of our social media content. I both posted the initial Facebook item, which automatically tweets the first 140 characters and a link, and removed/replaced the initial tweet.

First, let me say that when it comes to changing news items or articles on our proper website, I always make an editorial note at the bottom, describing the change in detail.

The reason why I deleted the initial tweet was twofold: I always remove redundant or duplicated tweets; the other reason was that I decided that instead of having others continue to react to the initial tweet (perhaps without noticing the updated tweet or my apology/explanation to our readers, such as yourself), I would just remove the initial tweet and save everyone (myself included) the needless drama.

Now, I'd like to take a moment to clarify in long form what it is I was initially trying to say in my lead-in blurb on Facebook/Twitter. I think it was merely a bit of ambiguity in my wording, and perhaps a bit of a hasty reaction on the part of some of our readers that caused the confusion. There is nothing wrong with saying that an already very sad situation took an even darker turn when it was suggested that Pistorius may have also been using steroids as well. I was not implying that I felt that steroid use morally trumps the senseless murder of another. That, of course, is just ridiculous.

What I was saying was that an already very sad, very confusing situation has gotten somehow even more unfortunate with the revelation that Mr. Pistorius may have been doping. Any potential steroid use on his part complicates things so much on so many levels: some may now discount his barrier breaking performance in our sport; steroid use could have been a factor in the murder; it could also be used a defence tactic in court. As you can see, it's not something that easily fits into 140 characters!

In closing, I just wanted to say thanks for writing this, as we work hard to maintain the highest of standards, both on our site and via our social media streams. I personally didn't lead anyone to believe that I was evaluating a runner's potential drug use as more morally shocking than the murder of a human being. Therefore, I really appreciate that you pointed out this bit of ambiguity so that I could quickly correct it and avoid potentially upsetting anyone else!

Oh, and with regards to your hamstring: are you sitting a lot during the day? That's a huge culprit when it comes to hamstring tightness! If so, get up and walk around every 30 or so minutes during the day. Also, before and after running, I would do dynamic stretches. Static stretches are a no-no! I do a series of lateral and forward leg swings before and after every run. These drills are also great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_HKaTPD7ZE

Good luck!

Michael Doyle
Web Producer, Canadian Running Magazine

kristen said...

Thanks Michael! You're right - the story just keeps twisting in newer and stranger directions (now with the police officer having to stop investigating because he's facing charges...). And now that I read your explanation - I can definitely see where you're coming from. It just seemed to read a different way on twitter (which isn't shocking with only 140 characters to use).

Thanks for the hamstring information - I should definitely do a better job of getting up and walking around during the day and doing more leg swings. I'll have to try some of the drills as well.

Thanks again!
~Kristen