The CBC Blogging Manifesto
Over the past few weeks I've had the pleasure of working with a group of CBC bloggers to come up with something we've called The CBC Blogging Manifesto. Many of us are passionate about the corporation, but unclear on how we should tell its stories. With the anniversary of the CBC lockout upon us - an event that divided the corporation but crystalized interest in the blogosphere - we felt it was a good time to try to come up with some common principles. I think it's a good start.Of course, these aren't rules, and nobody has to follow them. I'll write more about how this came about when time permits. In the meantime... what do you think?The CBC Blogging Manifesto
Preamble:
If you blog about the CBC, it's assumed that you are doing so out of love and perhaps frustration.
It's only natural. The CBC is a wonderful institution with a long, proud history, going through an interesting and difficult time. By blogging about the CBC your colleagues, senior management, and the public will all be enriched by your expert opinion. Your insight, experience, and will will only help the world at large better understand a corporation that at times appears stodgy, arrogant, and faceless.
For better or for worse, you are representing the CBC when you blog about it. Keep this in mind with every word.
- Use common sense and don't do anything stupid. Blog to make the CBC better, not to kill it. There are plenty of others who want to do that for us.
- Ad hominem attacks should be avoided but disagreeing is expected.
- Be brave.
Be honest and tell it straight. Talk about new ideas and revive some old ones. Don't be afraid to challenge the “experts,” and certainly not the anonymous ones.- Use audio, video and images fearlessly, but responsibly.
Use judgment if asked to take it down.- Acknowledge and link to your sources.
If it is a rumour, say so. If your co-worker says something you'd like blog, ask them first. If it was another website, link to it. Do your research. Be fair. Get it right. And change it if it is wrong.- Blog wherever and whenever you want, but don’t let it detract from your job.
- Eschew advertising.
Plugging the CBC, yourself, and your work is cool. Banner ads are tacky.- During the next strike or lockout, you may feel urged to ignore any or all of these guidelines. Do so at your own risk, knowing that your words can harm yourself, others, and the CBC itself.
Tags:
7 Comments:
I think I'd like to hear more about how this phony Maifesto came about, and how you got suckered into teaming up with a group of self-serving hypocrites who want to control free speech on the internet and humiliate your employer in public while using false identities and airing gossip about the CBC instead of simply encouraging people to forward comments to management using traditional and honourable methods.
Are you feeling a touch impotent these days?
By the way, your site is groovy
Your manifesto says it's ok to spread rumours about the CBC.
Was this intentional?
Ok, I think Allan is a bit excessive in his disagreement, but his sentiments, I happen to feel, are not without foundation. A manifesto makes me think 'edict' or 'commandment' and that kind of restriction on blogs - even blogs that may include entries that are political and about the CBC MUST be free to say whatever they want. You manifesto DOES allow for a LOT of leeway I will admit, but keeps pointing back at the blogger to 'use their judgement.' Does that mean when a blogger posts something about the CBC that you do not agree with or that management does not agree with that their judgement is erroneous? If so, who makes that call? And if not, what is the point of a manifesto with no teeth? I worry that we already work in a place with a tonne of hoops to jump through, why line up one more? If you are NOT a 'responsible' blogger, then you will probably ignore this manifesto. If you are a 'responsible' blogger, then you have your own set of moral standards and personal lines that you will not cross. Bringing me back again to the USE of this manifesto. Do we need it in order to point out blogs that do not comply? Or ones that do?
I'm glad to see there's still an interest in this subject, and I'm happy to give you my take on it. I'll start with Allan first, then Angel.
To Allan:
Having read your comments on the Manifesto site, and on Azerbic, and on Teamakers, and on some of the other contributor blogs, I have to say I was tempted to not reply. You raise some good points, you really do. But I find the tone has not always been civil nor the approach appropriate.
On the Manifesto site, at one point you posted 23 comments in a row, some as little as two minutes apart. You called us - all of us - losers, on multiple occasions. On Teamakers, you continued your attack off-topic in other threads. Internet wide, such behaviour is considered spamming and trolling, and it's unacceptable. It's not something I want to invite to my blog.
But what I do want to invite to my blog is sincere dialogue, and I'm happy to stand behind the things I write. So I'll address your comments in good faith, and hope that things stay appropriate. It did on Assorted Nonsense, and I'm hoping it can here as well.
First, I'm glad you find my site groovy - thanks!
OK, so you asked how this manifesto came about, and how I got involved with the other contributors. Here's my take:
I started this blog about six weeks ago to teach myself how blogging works. It wasn't that I thought I had anything particularly important to say, but I was tackling some web tech stuff at work, and wanted to learn more. Plus I was applying for a couple of internet jobs, and felt I should get with the times.
The first blog I made - http://chairmanmayo.blogspot.com/ - was anonymous, simply because I was still leery of giving out too much personal information on the internet. But after a few posts, I realized that a) people can find my personal info with or without a blog, b) the anonymity didn't serve any purpose, c) an anonymous blog would look stupid on a resume, and d) as a journalist, I try to stand behind what I write. So I started blogging under my own name. I'm not saying there's no place for anonymity online - it just wasn't for me.
The more I blogged, the more I found that CBC started cropping up. It shouldn't be that surprising, since I spend 50 per cent of my waking hours there. And I wasn't saying anything scandalous. But it got me wondering if there were any rules that should be aware of.
So I checked the collective agreement, and the Journalistic Standards and Practices. Neither seemed very helpful, nor applicable to the internet age.
For example, the JS&P V.2.4.3 says: "CBC/Radio-Canada journalists may not express their personal opinions in outside publications" unless specifically authorized.
OK. But what's a "publication"? (A newspaper? A newsgroup? An e-mail?) And who is a "journalist"? (An on-air host? The janitor with a blog?) And what is an "opinion"? (Hezbollah is evil? The yodelling girl should win America's Got Talent?)
Other parts of the JS&P don't make sense outside of traditional broadcasting. For examply, I published a silly little poll on my blog about "worst jobs" - am I required to supply a margin of error?
So I started asking around, to see if the CBC had come up with specific policy about blogs.
- I asked a manager, and he said that management wasn't particularly concerned about personal blogs, and that no policy was likely coming soon. Which is fine, but doesn't clarify what's appropriate and what existing rules may or may not apply.
- I asked a union contact, and she suggested I post anonymously to avoid sticking my neck out. But that struck me as dishonest and unnecessary.
- I asked Ouimet, and learned that David Bazay thought the JS&P should apply, and that CBC was working on an official policy, but it never came out.
The policy vacuum seemed to me likely to lead to either a) Self-censorship, even when it is unfounded, or b) anonymity, with less accountability and more vitriol.
It's obvious the corp isn't against blogging. There are dozens of journalist blogs on CBC.ca; Tod was hired to set up an official blog; anecdotally, the response to employee blogs seems to be positive. After the lockout there was a lot of talk about embracing new voices and new technology, openness and transparency, etc. - it seems like blogging is a part of that.
So Ouimet and I got talking, and wondered if CBC bloggers couldn't set up our own set of guidelines, something based on best practices in other corporations that we could voluntarily follow in the lack of other information. We started e-mailing other CBC bloggers to see what they thought.
After some 60 e-mails back and forth and around and around, we came up with the CBC Blogging Manifesto. We decided to have some fun with it, in the name, logo and some of the points. It certainly isn't perfect, but I think it's a reasonable start.
Obviously it isn't binding, and the corporation may one day come up with its own policy, which I for one will be happy to follow.
If it does, however, I hope that it will be the result of an inclusive examination of what the corporation wants, what employees want, and what makes sense on the internet. We hoped our guidelines could be a starting point for those conversations.
This is what happened at Sun Microsystems, and I think what they came up with is very sensible. Have a look:
http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/blogs/policy.html
A similar thing happened at IBM, which actively encourages its employees to blog:
http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm
So there it is. It isn't some conspiracy of power-hungry maniacs out to give away the secret sauce recipe. It's a bunch of people who write about their lives and interests, and couldn't get a straight answer on what's appropriate.
It's getting late, but to answer a couple of your other points:
- I'm not a hypocrite, I don't want to control free speech, I'm not using a false identity. I have no interest in spreading gossip or humiliating my employer. If you think any of these apply to me, please demonstrate where I've done so. I can't vouch for every post by every other Manifesto contributor, and I don't have to. They all came up with good ideas about blogging standards, for which I'm very grateful. That's where it ends.
- Nothing wrong with traditional channels, and I continue to use them. They are two separate things. Blogging about a funny archival As It Happens Show I heard can happily coexist with giving my boss suggestions about web content we should offer.
- Rumours: Point 5 doesn't say "rumours about CBC", nor does it say you should spread them. It could be rebutting them, for that matter. The internet is full of rumours, and I think it would be better if people identified them as such. I don't have a lot of use for them on my blog, but I admit to reading celebrity gossip and NBA trade rumours daily :)
To Karmic Angel:
The word Manifesto may make you think of 'edict' or 'commandment', but that isn't what it means. Look it up:
Manifesto: A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.
That's exactly what this is - a statement of principles.
As I said to Ouimet at the outset of this project, I see this as similar to other member-driven voluntary codes of conduct that govern many professional bodies. Rather than ask someone external to impose rules, we decided to look at what was reasonable and appropriate, and try to spell it out clearly for our selves.
Should bloggers be allowed to say whatever they want? They certainly can, but it might come back to bite them. I can think of a whole bunch of things that one could say that would contravene the JS&P, the collective agreement, your employment contract, and the Criminal Code. I'd advise against doing so.
You are absolutely right, the foundation of the Manifesto is "use your judgement". The emphasis is on your judgement. That means each blogger has to analyze the rules and norms that may apply to them in each situation (e.g. contracts, copyright, libel, good journalism, and common sense). They are the only one in a position to make that call. The Manifesto simply provides some reminders of what to consider, and says what this small group thinks about them.
There are no blog-copy to bust anyone - contributor or otherwise - who ignores any of these points. What are we going to do - ostracize you, rat you out to The Man, revoke your Technorati privileges? Ridiculous, obviously. Again, the only point of this was to start a discussion of common sense standards to shoot for.
This isn't a club, there are no membership dues, and there are no real "signatories". If people want to be irresponsible there's nothing I can do about it, and I'd be absoltely delighted if each person came up with their own guidelines.
Thing is, CBC hasn't done so, and everyone was left speculating and second-guessing in isolation. Myself, I felt better being a part of a conversation with other bloggers, who had other experiences, knowledge and ideas. They mentioned things I hadn't considered (e.g. how do your colleagues feel about you blogging?) and sources I didn't know about (e.g. the Sun policy.)
We thought it would be helpful to synthesize and write down those ideas, so the CBC blogging community could talk about them. Which is what is happening right now.
In my view, that's a good thing.
Ok, now we have a debate:
Manifesto doesn't just 'make me think' of the word edict, edict is the first word in the thesaurus for the word Manifesto, so sweetie, YOU look it up. And I'm all for a voluntary code of conduct as long as we define what happens when a CBC blogger DOESN'T measure up to these standards.
The fact that statements people make in their blogs could come back to bite them is true, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they should not state them. Especially if the statements are the truth and have ramifications for the larger community. And frankly, if a blogger is nutty enough to write things that contravene the Criminal Code, well, no manifesto is going to restrain them if the threat of police involvement doesn't.
If this is the point of your Manifesto, with no farther reaching goals or punishments in mind: "The Manifesto simply provides some reminders of what to consider, and says what this small group thinks about them," then I support it.
But what if (just an if) someone at the CBC Management level takes your manifesto and makes it a requirement. Somehow. Like the thing you have to click past when we log-in these days? That states the CBC could be reading our emails. What if another line on that page says "And any employee of the CBC who is the owner/operator of a blog must adhere to the policies set out by this manifesto?" Its not like that is completly outside the realm of possibility...
In my view, that's a bad bad thing.
I did look it up (and quoted it) – with the difference being I looked up the right source. A dictionary defines words, while a thesaurus lists similar words. No contest. It's silly to argue the meaning of a word based on the definition of another word that is pretty close to it. But we digress, no?
You know, I couldn't disagree more with the call for rules with associated punishment. Leave that for the corp, although I hope it doesn't do it either.
A voluntary code of conduct that includes sanctions wouldn't make sense. We aren't in a position to punish anyone (see previous post – what possible punishment could you or I mete out?) If it's voluntary, those who want to contravene will just not volunteer. And it's antithetical to free speech and the whole point of blogging.
Nobody here (except maybe Allan) wants to police the blogosphere; we want to encourage it. Think of the Manifesto as a mission statement, or as the definition says, a declaration of principles and intentions. That's all.
You make a good point about stating the truth, even if there are consequences. And you are right that someone who wants to break the rules isn't going to sign their name to more of them – which is fine by me. Nobody has to sign this, but I think it's a helpful document for those who want to declare what their approach is.
Come to think of it, I don't think the Manifesto specifically prohibits breaking rules. The only possible exception might be point 1, where doing so would be "stupid." And if it's clearly the right thing to do, then it isn't stupid.
Could management make our Manifesto a requirement? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it. First of all, I'd hotly contest such a move – this was supposed to be a starting point for a conversation, not the end product. The handful of us who wrote it don't represent the entire CBC community, bloggers or others. I would hope they'd start a wider consultative process.
However, the pessimists among us worried the opposite was more likely – that CBC would just come up with a heavy-handed policy based on, well, whatever CBC management wanted. No consultation with bloggers, no dialogue with the public (like what's happening right here), no looking at industry best practices. CBC can obviously implement any blogging rules it wants. If it does, I'd rather make some suggestions first.
Post a Comment
<< Home