BBC College of Journalism Blog - A vigorous and robust discussion about journalism from every perspective.

The first day of the BBC Social Media Summit (#bbcsms) discussed changing editorial judgments. Julie Posetti reports:

"The biggest issue with social media is verification." That statement from one journalist at yesterday's #bbcsms workshop was met with vigorous nods of agreement - from newspaper reporters and online editors to radio producers.

But how do you define verification? Can it evolve in the manner of a radio news story filling in blanks over time? Can it be crowdsourced, with media consumers acting as widely distributed fact-checkers with collective expertise? And what standards of verification and accuracy do audiences expect of professional journalists in the social media sphere?

One participant reported: "Our default is to publish unchecked information with a disclaimer that it's unverified." Such an approach has become relatively standard for some of the world's big media brands on breaking news stories, but many journalists remain concerned about the implications of this shift under the influence of social media; for professional practice and traditional ethics.

At the other end of the spectrum, one contributor reported that a correspondent in their organisation had their tweets vetted prior to posting, as part of a strict social media policy that reflected residual corporate nervousness about accuracy and editorial integrity in the social media space: "If the correspondent is on air, nobody vets what they say beforehand. But it's a bit of a sop to management to have tweets checked before publication."

Some journalists spoke of simply transposing traditional processes of verification in the Twitterverse - for example, by following up tweets with direct messages, phone calls and face-to-face meetings, where appropriate. Others talked of the need for the development of technology to assist the process and, importantly, appropriate newsroom resourcing for the tasks of verifying user-generated content from myriad sources.

Julie Posetti - @julieposetti - is a journalist and journalism academic from Canberra, Australia. After a TV and radio career covering politics, documentaries and social justice issues, she teaches radio and television journalism at the University of Canberra.

Reports from others in different groups discussing the issues:

Paul Bradshaw writes: We sometimes underestimate the anxieties of journalists who are used to having editors and presenters between themselves and the audience - they are afraid of making mistakes or stirring up a hornets' nest. At the same time, many experienced journalists overestimate their ability to operate professionally, making basic mistakes.

How much you can trust material on social media is, as ever, an issue. But an increasing number of journalists understand that they merely need to treat it as they would any other source - and insist on having two sources on any story. The advantage of the internet is that search tools can help you to look for - and follow up - those second sources. And of course much of that material will come from people you trust or where information elsewhere can verify it.

Organised campaigns on social media disguised as public opinion are more problematic, especially when content is post-moderated. Although there's a skill to be built in knowing when to respond and when to ignore bait, it's not so clear how to manage disinformation.

It's clear that journalists focus far too much on Twitter even though Facebook drives more traffic for the news organisation. The feeling was that this was because the point wasn't where the audience is, but where the news is - and the news is on Twitter. It delivers the most results, and builds the journalists' profile. Facebook, in comparison, represents more work with less immediately visible results.

Paul Bradshaw - @paulbradshaw - is founder of the Online Journalism Blog and the crowdsourcing website Helpmeinvestigate. He is a visiting professor at City University, London.

Graham Holliday writes: The discussion on editorial concerns largely focused on the clash of old and new ways of doing things; the balance between public and private; and how in some cases - in particular radio - traditional audiences are still bigger than newer, online audiences.

One large news outlet organises the newsroom so that more senior staff sit right next to the younger hacks:

"In our office, the older generation sit side by side with the newer, social media-driven hacks. They interact with people in a very different way."

It was noted that it is easy to make mistakes. You have to remember what your principles are as journalists:

"It's very easy to tweet something you wouldn't actually report. We have started imposing rules on staff: 'Use your brain; you are all journalists; remember who you are and what your principles are'."

Another editor said: "It's all about trust. You are a journalist 24 hours a day."

On the balance between what is public and what is private, there was no consensus on where to draw the line:

"It's difficult to balance public and private. However, it's hard to argue that an account is a private account when it's being used to promote stories."

One staff member at a large newspaper said that "7% of our traffic comes from social media. That's up from 2% last year. Of that, social media traffic, Facebook makes up 60% of the total."

But, while the trend is increasing, one radio editor noted that traditional outlets still dominate:

"Our traditional audience is still bigger than the new one. Social media adds value, but not really audience at the moment."

Graham Holliday - @noodlepie - is a foreign correspondent, photojournalist, university lecturer and BBC journalism trainer. He has worked on blogs, social media and citizen journalism projects since 2002.

Daniel Bennett writes: A media organisation is now more visibly represented by its individual journalists. The boundaries between the personal and the professional are fluid online.

Journalists have become personal portals for news, and also offer audiences news about their personal lives.

The blurring of the personal and the professional has led to questions about how much journalists reveal about their biases, personality, opinions, and how often they walk the dog. Some journalists have discovered the boundaries the hard way with ill-advised contributions on social media platforms that have had consequences for them and their news organisation.

Social media guidelines, training schemes and shared experiences have helped journalists to navigate the potential pitfalls of their blurred personal and professional online identity. But there seems to be no uniform position on how news organisations approach branded accounts versus personal accounts that are used by journalists for their work. A variety of strategies are being employed.

With so many journalists engaging online, central editorial oversight on a tweet-by-tweet basis is impossible, and the maintenance of editorial values and the reputation of the news organisation is increasingly devolved to individual journalists.

A more personal or transparent approach, however, has helped journalists to improve their relationship with the audience. By becoming trusted personal brands through engagement with members of the audience, they have seen their journalism benefit as a consequence, developing contacts, sources and online news communities.

Daniel Bennett - @Dan_10v11 - is a PhD candidate in the War Studies Department at King's College, London, writing a thesis on the impact of blogging on the BBC's coverage of war and terrorism.