All Bloggers Beware…You Are Public Media
- Posted by Ephraim Cohen on July 19th, 2006 filed in Blogging, Blogroll, General, Public Relations
If you blog, are you automatically a part of the media?
Another case of a blogger, Catherine Sanderson, being fired for blogging about her company, Dixon Wilson, was reported by CNN. The article quoted another blogger which raised an interesting point:
On Wednesday Daily Telegraph Paris correspondent Colin Randall, who first wrote about the plight of “La Petite Anglaise,” used his own blog to ask whether print journalism is about to be smothered by the online age and “the march of the New Media.”
One blogger responded: “I find it interesting that bloggers claim to be `the New Media’ and then complain about being terminated from their positions at companies for being bloggers: would you expect to be terminated if you `moonlighted’ for the traditional media?
“Say you worked for a large corporation, and in your spare time you wrote an anonymous ‘insider’s view’ column for the Financial Times. Would you expect anything less than termination upon discovery?”
The debate goes back and forth in the article but the bottom line point remains the same - when you blog, you are publishing public content. Employees or anyone else should treat their public blog as no different than publishing their thoughts in a newspaper or speaking on a soap box in a park. If you would expect that shouting out your thoughts in a public park might get you into trouble (as they might any employee publicly berating a boss), don’t expect different treatment when you do it through a blog.
Sphere: Related Content
July 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Read scobles comments. You are incorrect in many of your assumtions. She didn’t berate her boss. She didn’t mention anyones name including her own. She didnt say anything about her work that was embarrassing.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
They are not my assumptions (this was from a CNN report) and I see my post as in complete agreement with Scobles. As he
says, “Blogging is like hopping on stage at a major conference.” Even if you have a mask over your face to try and be anonymous, you are still speaking publicly about your company and once they find out who you are, they may make a decision to let you go.
If I would make any adjustment to my post to be more accurate it would be to say that publishing in a public blog without using your name is the same as publishing in a newspaper without a byline or speaking on a soap box with a mask over your face. It’s still public publishing and public speaking.
Somewhat ironically, M’s comment does not reflect what the employer claims were insulting comments about executives and the company (which is her boss) on the blog. To them, that was embarrassing.
Some bottom line good advice from Scoble to employees:
“It’s why I don’t advise anyone try the anonymous route: either be straight up with your boss and everyone, or stay off the Internet.”
July 21st, 2006 at 10:57 am
>They are not my assumptions (this was from a CNN report)
I meant go read the blog. Its available. Read the posts they are complaining about. Dont read news reports. Read the orginal source.
>I see my post as in complete agreement with Scobles.
I meant read the comments log, in scobles post.
I disagreed with scobles post itself but the comment log was very good.
Scoble also didnt go read the primary material, the blog that was complained about. He had to be corrected that the writer was a british women working in france for a british company, not a french women. Read the log and you will see that.
She didn’t insult the executives or the comments. There was an annotadote but it wasn’t insulting. If anything it made the company seem like humans worked there, a very postive thing these days.
>Somewhat ironically, M’s comment does not reflect what the >employer claims were insulting comments about executives >and the company (which is her boss) on the blog. To them, >that was embarrassing.
I had difficulty understanding what you meant here so if my reply is not related please say so.
No one would have thought anything bad about the company (if they figured out who the company was which was very unlikely) until they followed this course of events. The post focused more on a small mistake by her and her embarassment than on anyone else involded.
They caused bad PR for themselves following this course of action and had themselves named. All they created was negative PR, even if some people agree with them, many more will not.
>you are still speaking publicly about your company
She never commented on how the company does there job. She didnt even say what they did. She never commented on any bad practices, just one boss was a bit out of touch (a common thing anyway, that one one is bothered about).
Its a bit patetic to be bothered about that. But then again the market will always kill those to cant keep with the times.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:04 pm
I stand corrected that I should have done more research by both reading the posts (on blogs like Scobles) as well as the original blogs…particularly supposedly the offensive posts. Things may not have been as bad as the media made them out to be (of couse, sensationalizing things is nothing new…).
However, I would only slightly rephrase and add on to my original post: I do think employees need to take care when discussion employers in any way. Employers often do not want to see any public publishing about their firm good or bad. Agree or disagree, good policy or bad, that’s the way it often is and employees are safer abiding by the rules.
That said, in this and related cases, employers should realize that, rules or no rules, we now in a far more transparent world where everyone expect to be able to be able to broadcast to the world (literally).  They will need to be far more careful about how they approach situations where employees broadcast opinions - good and bad - about the company. Â
The better companies first take a more process oriented approach to see if they can work with the employee to come to an agreement over the situation (e.g., establishing blogging guidelines, explore havintg the employee actually be an official spokesperson, discuss why employees are asked not to publish writings about the company etc). Perhaps they have here, it couldn’t be worked out, and then still let the employee go. I couldn’t find much of the companies side of the story (a different communications problem). However, if the company simply summarily dismissed the employee, then it may have been a case where they were right in the technical sense, but will pay a price by being seen as wrong in so many other ways.Â
July 22nd, 2006 at 11:38 am
Observers who are rushing in here are missing the most important fact: What is “out there” took place two months ago. Much has happened, and this presents several rush-to-judgment issues. In other words, you’ve taken the bait here, just as was intended.
Second, a little digging will reveal that La Petite Anglaise’s base is Wanadoo. OK, there you are. You can surmise again, or take the next step on your own… But be more careful, lest you turn up with an omelette on your face as the “rollout” that is underway takes the next steps.
Ms. Sanderson will get her $110,000, and probably her book and/or a television show if she is mature enough to handle it all. There is a tough world out there intent on finding any weaknesses in her side, willing to eat her for breakfast before it moves on. But for now, the lifestyle media have turned up an issue replete with production values that is huge for today’s thirty-somethings, that the older generation is just getting a clue about.
Lastly, if you side with the firm, don’t underestimate this one. They are following classic pa technique - e.g., caught in the headlights without a clue at first (see above), let this first wave wash over, then respond with your expensive campaign. Bruised and trivially poorer, they will move on with their clientele who is now only mildly amused (see above again re the clueless) except for the distaff half of their accounts. Oh, and the wives of the principals themselves. (The point: Their real problems aren’t even touched on in the post or comments above. See above re clueless.)