Whose blog is it anyway?
I don’t mind CBC having a blogging policy.
I asked for one, more than a year ago, and got no answer. So did others.
I don’t mind following blogging guidelines. After getting no answer from CBC, I helped write my own.
I don’t even object to most of the line items in the “Personal Blogging - Guidelines for CBC/Radio-Canada Employees” document that was leaked out yesterday. A lot of them are common sense.
But I really, really resent the way this document came about. To wit: it was crafted behind closed doors, in secret, without any consultation with the people who know and care most about it, without any heed to industry best practices, without any transparency or public input.
That’s a pre-lockout mindset, and it coughed up a Web 1.0 policy that makes everyone look foolish. And that, in my opinion, is more damaging than anything any CBC blogger has ever said or done.
The document
The CBC’s blogging guidelines have not been officially distributed, although I have a copy of it. I suspect it wasn’t quite ready for primetime, and a few people have probably had their long weekends ruined as a result of the leak. Especially after it got BoingBoinged.
What’s the document say? After a preamble about the importance of the internet and the rise of blogging, the document states that blogging (and, of note, other self-publishing including podcasting) must be done according to the new guidelines, “if the content clearly associates them with CBC/Radio-Canada.”
Nobody understands what that means. The document later states that:
Blogs or websites which do not identify the bloggers as a CBC/Radio-Canada employee, do not discuss CBC/Radio-Canada and are purely about personal matters would normally fall outside these guidelines.
The ambiguity over what counts as “associating” yourself with CBC, and what counts as “discussing” CBC is worrying, and perhaps purposeful. (If I list myself as “a journalist who works for a Canadian national public broadcaster”, is that identification? Couldn’t you just look me up? What if it’s on my CV? What if I accidentally mention that I was in an elevator with Luba Goy? Can I talk about the bathroom stalls any more? Can I review a Dr. Who episode?)
If you determine you might be associated with CBC or might talk about your employer, there are a number of bullet points to follow. And I have to say most of them are common sense, and simply reiterate the rules CBC journalists already have to follow. Conduct yourself in accordance with your contract, HR policies, and the Journalistic Standards and Practices. Don’t waste CBC time or channels. CBC work belongs to CBC. And so on.
There’s a little confusion over the edict to avoid partisan politics and “controversy”, but that’s all in the JS&P already – a worthy, sensible document, though it could use a little internet-age revision.
The part that’s going to raise hell is the twice-repeated claim that “to start and maintain a blog of this kind, you need your supervisor’s approval.”
I don’t know if that’s legal, enforceable, constitutional or smart. Part of me wants to call a lawyer, call the union, call the Electronic Frontier Foundation to find out. I did consult a professional ethicist who drafts policies like these for a living, and his first impression was not positive. (He promises to weigh in shortly weighs in here with some interesting points.)
But my point is that all these calls should have already been made – by CBC, not by me.
A year late
See, the explosion of CBC employee blogging happened during the 2005 lockout, a time we’d all rather put behind us. Simply put, on the street level PR front, CBC management got it’s ass handed to it on a platter.
And to their credit they made some moves to get with the program: They launched an official blog and hired the most effective locked-out blogger to run it. They cleared the path for official CBC blogs and made an extraordinary push into podcasting. They sent out RFPs for Web 2.0 tools for CBC.ca, explored TV shows with civic input. And they talked a lot about nimbleness, transparency and collaboration. You can argue about the results, but the ship seemed to be headed in the right direction.
I started blogging a few months later, and tried to find out what rules I needed to follow. I asked a manager, a union rep and other bloggers, and nobody knew. Not only was there no official policy, but it appeared (rightly) that none would be coming for a long time.
So a bunch of us got together to write our own guidelines. We called it the CBC Blogging Manifesto (mostly in jest) but really it was just a statement of principles, designed to clarify what we thought was important. It started with:
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.
I guess the manifesto failed, though. Because what we really wanted was for CBC policy makers to read it and think of it as starting point when they eventually crafted an official policy. We hoped it would open the door to a conversation with people who care deeply about both blogging and the corporation. We hoped that maybe someday, someone might want to talk.
But they didn’t.
Instead, exactly one year later, the management version leaked out, without any conversation at all. It came from somewhere within the Editor in Chief’s office (though I don’t know if it came from the acting or outgoing EIC) and it was distributed somehow (but not to bloggers) by my boss’s boss, then leaked, then clarified as “guidelines” [update: then clarified as “draft guidelines”.] I suppose if I ever receive it through official channels, I’ll have to toe the line, if anyone knows where it is.
I don’t have a problem with that. It’s management’s right - they make the rules, and I’ll do what I’m told. I always do. But MAN! Talk about a wasted opportunity for some good PR, some good advice, and some goodwill.
Outside the box
Here’s what progressive companies do, the ones that understand technology, value employees and care about communication.
They take risks, like Sun Microsystems did.
Many of us at Sun are doing work that could change the world. We need to do a better job of telling the world. As of now, you are encouraged to tell the world about your work, without asking permission first …. By speaking directly to the world, without benefit of management approval, we are accepting higher risks in the interest of higher rewards….The real goal isn’t to get everyone at Sun blogging, it’s to become part of the industry conversation.
Being a part of the industry conversation seems like something CBC desperately wants.
Same thing happened at IBM more than two years ago:
IBM today is publishing an announcement on its Intranet site encouraging all 320,000+ employees world wide to consider engaging actively in the practice of “blogging”. This move follows several years of persistent grassroots efforts by an informal community of IBM bloggers. Technical leaders like Sam Ruby, Grady Booch, Robert Sutor and business leaders like Ed Brill and Catherine Helzerman have played a very significant role in this effort by providing excellent models for other IBMers to follow. Behind the scenes, a small handful of technical innovators developed and deployed an internal blogging service that has grown in a period of just 18 months to just shy of 9,000 registered users spanning 65 countries….
My godfathers, is the nation’s broadcaster really less progressive with communications than Big Blue?
It has always shocked the hell out of me that in a corporation of 10,000 people, all focused on communications, there are less than two dozen who run blogs under their own names. Maybe now I know why. Maybe my wife was right, and I should have never stuck out my neck. I thought I had proved her wrong when CBC Communications said they liked my work enough to let me fill in on the official CBC blog. Maybe not.
Maybe we should all blog anonymously, neatly sidestepping this policy. Then we can say whatever we want, like we did during the lockout. Lord knows that will reflect more positively on the corporation, right? We all saw what that world was like. Drive everyone underground and create a dozen little CBC Drones and Tea Makers.
Do we even need a policy? Has someone blogged the secret sauce recipe, and needs to be Dooced?
Or could we have just trusted people to use their brains and follow existing policies? Just days before his death, the late David Bazay, then CBC Ombudsman, wrote this on the subject. (He was responding to an anonymous blogger.)
If public broadcasters are to become bloggers I would hope that they would exercise their freedom of speech exactly the way they are compelled to exercise it within the CBC: with accuracy, fairness and integrity, with the responsible speech of CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices that has helped make this place one of the great places in the world where the citizen can be well informed.
That just about makes me want to cry. Whatever happened to those guys who trusted their employees and thought they might – just might – be able to inform people and reflect well on the corporation?
————
Update: According to CBC acting Editor in Chief Esther Enkin, the document circulated was “an early draft of proposed policies” which was “inadvertently passed on”. No specific corporate policies relating directly to blogging are in effect, though other policies still apply. Blogging rules may be coming in the future, and they may take some of this reaction into account.
Posted by: Paul Gorbould | 08-05-2007 | 01:08 AM
Posted in: CBC | Blogging
Loading ...
That was a really interesting piece.
Thanks for this.
Thanks very much, Allan and Megan.
I don’t know whether I should hope others read this, or not…
But they should at least check out the Technorati links to Tod’s story on the policy. You know, get the pulse on what people are saying and thinking? Radical.
This one and this one and this one are particularly interesting.
You’re clearly really into this stuff.
I’d like to run a question by you.
Is it a pre-requisite that you must be an employee of the CBC to know what’s best for the CBC?
Paul, you have a lot of questions about this new blogging policy.
Would this help?
any time a current employee identifies themselves with the CBC they are required to display in a prominent manner …
You simply put the words “this work is not funded or authorized by the CBC”. and you use common sense.
Otherwise, you present yourself as you would at work, and take the consequences.
Hello again Alan - this is starting off on a better foot than when we drafted the Manifesto, no?
As for your first question, if it is one, of course not - Lord, I hope not, otherwise I fear for our new Chairman, Board of Directors, and President. All those positions exist, and are usually filled externally, for good reasons - though I do think a little pinch of employee input wouldn’t spoil the broth.
Same goes for this policy - which was written by CBC employees, though I don’t know which ones. I suspect the final product would have had fewer holes and better optics if those who blog had a little input. And, back to your point, I think that non-employee input would have helped too - looking at industry best practices etc.
What’s probably not best for CBC is a policy crafted in a vacuum.
As for your second point, yes, I think it would be miles better if a strong disclaimer saying a blog is not a CBC product was sufficient (check out my current profile…) But under this policy, it isn’t.
On the contrary, if I’m identified as an employee (like on my CV?) or if my content “associates” me with the CBC (anything that happens to me 9-5?), then the CBC claims control and could in theory deny permission.
I have no issue with putting up a disclaimer AND conducting myself as I would at work. But having to ask permission to do so seems a bit much.
I think when you see the phrase “asking for permission”, it probably strikes you as demeaning, or smacks a bit of military formality, or parent-child relationship.
But the spirit of the law is such that you are ethically obligated to advise the CBC when you makes approaches to the public citing your association with the CBC.
A friend of mine went out and fixed people’s computers saying that he worked for Apple.
He did.
But the repair business was his own.
When there was a problem, people contacted Apple.
It didn’t work out well for anyone.
The thing is to prevent people from being misled.
At least by advising you of this permission requirement, if anyone chooses to mislead people, the CBC cannot be held responsible because the act was clearly without their permission.
Seems like a smart thing to do to protect your salaries from being sucked into the pockets of lawyers because of the actions of one irresponsible jerk.
Where is the money supposed to come from to settle lawsuits?
And isn’t it just a tad rude to be writing about your employer and expect them to have to seek out the existence of your, I assume, prolific remarks?
Should I not tell the Toronto Star that I’m blogging about it if I were to work there?
Or would you prefer to be surprised when you come across my I’m A Big Fan of Paul Gorbould blog?
I’m with you 100% about not misleading the public. That’s why my profile has always said, “This is his personal blog and is not affiliated with his employer.” If there’s a more clear way to say it, I’d be happy to. (I did feel a bit daft changing it, yesterday, to say that I work for “a” digital archives website, and removing the link - is it a secret or something?)
But disclaimers aren’t sufficient under this policy. By saying that this blog is not associated with the CBC, I’m associating it with the CBC, and thus invoking the policy. I think that part needs improvement.
Is it rude to suggest that CBC could have consulted CBC bloggers before writing a CBC blogging policy? I don’t know. I hope not - I think it’s common sense, and in keeping with what CBC is trying to do.
For example, my office is moving to the a new, redesigned space. CBC went out of its way to select a design firm that relies extensively on input from those being moved - the theory being that those who need to use the space know something about the space needs. I’ve been invited to to six meetings about it so far.
Most of the software systems we use have employee user groups that help inform future changes. New systems like the Performance Management and Staff Development process, and new policies on HR, diversity, health, human rights, etc. were all crafted as joint management/union ventures. Research and buy-in seems to be important. I think it could have helped here too.
Again, I don’t mind having a policy - I just think it could be improved. It doesn’t address some basic questions that any blogger could have told them about, if asked - and now those questions are being asked in a more adversarial manner.
Here’s a question: unless I write exclusively about my bug collection, chances are someone will figure out I work for CBC, and therefore I need my supervisor’s permission. Does he then give me blanket permission to blog - like, say, Rex Murphy in the Globe - and I can write about anything? Or does he approve some topics and not others, making him my personal editor and censor? Is he then responsible for my blog, and its comments?
I think he’d prefer that I simply inform him I have a blog, and put up a 30-point disclaimer.
Also, I’m pretty sure this *is* the I’m A Big Fan of Paul Gorbould blog. Population: 1. (But I could at least provide a picture for yours - thanks for the laugh.)
Update with a few links: Robert Smith at the NPR News Blog takes a look at our two blogging policies.
I’m curious to see what policies other journalistic outfits have come up with.
Of note, he quotes NPR’s policy:
Similar but different in a few key areas. It only applies to journalists, not all employees. And it specifies that approval won’t be unreasonably withheld - CBC’s doesn’t specify.
Ethics scholar Chris Macdonald (a former schoolmate of mine) also published a piece on the CBC policy. He discusses several problems of ambiguity and freedom, and notes that for policies like this, employee buy-in is critical.
And someone has set up an anonymous blog where all CBC related articles can be published with impunity.
While you are employed by the CBC, you arethe CBC.
So why would anyone demand the right to shoot themselves in the foot without CBC approval?
I’d prefer you didn’t do it, and continued to be loyal to your own foot, but who can really stop someone who is hell-bent on destruction?
I’m getting the drift that you want the best of both worlds, the right to be Jekyll & Hyde.
You want your right to not have the Corporation threaten your peace of mind about employment.
You are lucky to have a union to help you there.
And you also want to have your rights as a private citizen respected.
You already have both, and will tomorrow as well.
Here’s my concern, Paul -
I will not stand for a fellow worker writing about me.
Period. No negotiating.
I will not allow pictures of me in the workplace to be used without my approval.
I expect to be treated with dignity and respect and accorded a degree of personal privacy.
I have not agreed at any time to perform my work in the main of the HBC at Queen and Yonge, nor to find images of me scratching my butt at a production meeting of The Hour show up on YouTube.
I expect and even demand my right to privacy.
Sorry if that means you can’t do just anything you want.
Sorry if that comes across as controlling you, personally.
You were probably only going to name a bug after me.
[…] employee and personal blogger Paul Gorbould noted this past weekend in his blog: I really, really resent the way this document came about. To wit: it […]
This is really the only question I have:
I’ve been blogging since 1998, I became an employee of CBC in 2001. So what happens to all of my pre-2001 entries that talk about the CBC when I was not an employee of the organization?
I’m sure everything will get sorted out in due time.
I work at the CBC.
I’m actually kind of an important person there, and everyone is always complimenting my work and saying I should be promoted.
I can’t believe how nobody really wants to do an honest day’s work around here except me.
You can feel free to write me, ask me anything you like about the CBC.
I’m not afraid of corporate stooges, and I’ll tell you anything you want to know.
I know my rights!
I can tell you who really runs things around here, and, well, i have some concerns and want to share them.
Because I pay taxes too!
Sometimes I think the only thing the CBC has done right lately was hire me.
I especially didn’t like the short time Newsworld gave to P.E.T.A, and so much to Michael Moore. Doesn’t he have enough of everything?
You all may want to write to Floyd Cavaliero.
He’s the one most easily irritated by emails.
I worry about alcoholism. We all see it every day in the workplace.
My usual quota for making puppets is 8, but this week they told me only 3 were needed. I’m worried.
There’s a shortage of ergo-chairs for those who need them. They promised me.
Everyone is bummed out.
I hear MacDonald’s wants to cut a deal for audience refreshments.
There a very few Mexicans working here.
My union has asked everyone to mention the importance of dental benefits and they’re monitoring the blogs to see the discussions.
There’s a memo circulating asking everyone who stole George’s boxers. What a hoot!
I’m not the CBC. Lord help it if I was. I’m an employee and a citizen, and any guidelines should be clear which is which.
Was there something on my blog so far that shot my foot, or invaded the privacy of my colleagues?
Yes, I would say that you have shot yourself in the foot.
After reading this post people who run into you in person will expect to meet a decent and intelligent and affable human being.
Good luck with that!
You are the CBC, Paul.
It’s nothing to be ashamed of.
You work there. I don’t.
I’m the one entitled to say I’m not the CBC.
I’m also not the Conservative government.
Now if you start to deliver my mail, then as far as I’m concerned, you’re Canada Post.
Also very cute in shorts.
[…] dictate provoked an angry response from some CBC bloggers, as it was seen as CBC trying to control what they say. It even made it onto […]
Q. “My godfathers, is the nation’s broadcaster really less progressive with communications than Big Blue?”
A. Yes.
[…] And that’s all I have to say about that. That, and what Paul said. […]
Better late than never:
I generally try to avoid using terms like ‘paranoid jerks’ when talking about people I’ve never ever met before but it sure slides near the surface when I brush up against this kind of ’suggestion/policy’ from a media corporation.
I pretty much don’t know you from Adam, Paul, but it’s blindingly clear to me that this is your personal blog. That it has nothing to do with CBC policy, image or, frankly, any damned thing they should have a say about. Just because it is a lot easier for we plebeians out here to become aware of you and the fact that you work for the Mothercorp certainly does not mean that they should start getting so freaked out about their ‘reputation’. It’s pretty infuriating, truth be told, because it assumes that your presence on the Intertubes is going to almost inevitably lead to someone having a concrete reason to bitch about something the CBC does. Why else go to all the trouble of so thoroughly getting involved in operation ‘butt cover’.
In a sane world people would see your blog (they would glance at your personal information) and understand the geography of you, them and the CBC. If you turned out to be a raving, hate spewing demagogue they would think, “Wow…I’m surprised that such a jerk works for the CBC” and then shrug because it would be none of their business. If it turned out you were a witty, thoughtful and interesting guy (sounds familiar) they might think “Hey, I’m glad to know some folks at the CBC are something like me” and then shrug because ultimately, it’s none of their damned business. Only a right proper nutter would resort to something ludicrous like invoking their position as a taxpayer to question CBC hiring policy based on the content of your personal web page.
The last time I checked this batch of electrons I was looking at was not part of the Front Street Broadcast center nor any ‘business’ associated with it. If anything it’s a cyber-park where you are standing on your little virtual soapbox and talking about your life. Only in some twisted Bizarro world is it a place your employers should have an iota of input. Yes, yes I’m oversimplifying but the degree to which all of this policyspeak is clearly driven by petrified legal hacks makes me want to cry.
p.s. I’ve read through your post several times now and have not found anything in it that remotely suggested you were indicating that your position as an employee suddenly gave you better insight into what was best for the CBC or that you had some kind of exclusionary claim on the veracity of your opinion. Am I missing something?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Grondzilla. I agree with everything you’ve said. I really don’t mind if CBC feels the need to put some of it in writing - if I need to post a disclaimer, and be reminded to follow existing policies, no problem. But they should think ahead to answer the inevitable questions, and any policy should be transparent and consultative and forward-thinking. Err on the side of being brave.
[…] ble vedtatt? Og det er interessant å se hvilken prosess som ligger bak slike regler. CBC-ansatt Paul Gorbould sier følgende: I really, really resent the way this document came about. To wit: it was crafted behind closed […]
And I disagree with almost all of it.
Blogs are expressions by people wanting to be seen and heard in a public forum. They are exactly the same as publishing a newspaper, a broadcast, or standing on a street corner and handing out leaflets.
The claim here is that no employer has a right ti interfere with or set parameters on what you as an individual can do.
That is patently absurd.
While demanding your rights, you deny others theirs.
The fact is that a company, any company, has a vested in interest in your activities outside the workplace if it bears on their ability to conduct business, to stay in business, to protect the lives of it’s employees, particularly their right to privacy.
The fact is that a company has a right to take issue with you after you no longer work there.
Any blogging policy that the CBC fashions must be consistent with it’s previously stated policies, policies that are made abundantly clear to anyone who chooses to accept employment.
No one is forced to work at the CBC.
It is not the only game in town.
For years, the CBC has made their policies, governing all employees, clear to everyone, and the rules governing blogging are nothing new.
To institute a new policy would be akin to re-negotiating the terms of employment.
Long before August 2007, every employee of the CBC agreed to adhere to Journalistic Standards and Practices
V. PERSONNEL STANDARDS
and I have seen no evidence of rebellion over these policies.
Now that we have the internet and personal computers, some people are of the view that they have new rights.
They do not.
They have new abilities.
New abilities for the manner in which they may apply existing rights.
There’s an Us vs. Them mentality evident in much of what is said above. A certain disrespect and impugning of less than honourable motives toward a group of people, essentially management.
Maybe the writer has already written off any chance of rising to the ranks of leadership within their organization, and so never has to think about the responsibilities that go with being responsible for the welfare of others, to protect each person under their direction from abuse by one or several others within the organization.
Paul has clearly agreed to the terms of his employment.
Paul indicates above that he always wanted a blogging policy, to the extent that he and his friends got tired of waiting for one and wrote one themselves.
One that I find misguided and poorly phrased and not necessarily in line with the rights he already enjoys at the CBC.
I consider it a “nice try, but no cigar”.
I appreciate the motivation behind this Manifesto as being one of sincerely wanting to help.
But I also see where the group expects their efforts to be greeted with respect and serious thoughtfulness, while an effort by management is automatically cast as suspicious and to be treated with disdain.
People reveal more than they realize or intend when they open their big mouths, and the discussion here and elsewhere, such as at the heavily censored blog insidecbc.ca, has often sunk to the level of laughable, let alone ignorant and short-sighted.
I especially enjoyed the remark “I don’t want my boss to control my brain.”
Frankly, the reality is that there are those who urgently need help in doing so, since they are so ill-equipped to do so for themselves.
And from the expressions I’ve seen on the internet, believe it or not, that includes some people who work at the CBC.
Paul
This is not intended to aggravate you or belittle you, because, as you know, I’m a big fan.
It is out of respect that you that I want to challenge you to back up some of the remarks you’ve made here.
It was your choice to enter the discussion about a blogging policy, and I’m glad you did, and I encourage others to do so as well.
It’s your right, and I will defend this right (particularly when someone recently attempted to deny me the right to speak, openly and honestly).
So could you. or your friends, please enumerate and elucidate what you think are “the inevitable questions”.
Believe it or not, I’m still learning and want to learn more, just like you.
And I don’t think that I know everything, or that mine is the final word, or bestest opinion.
But I also prefer that people not deal in cliches or platitudes, but explain themselves in such a manner that even my small, readily controlled brain can understand.
Are you up for it, Paul? Or have we seen the extent of your thoughts about these issues, and you’re exhausted.
What questions remain?
Take your time.
Paul, allow me to make one more final point before heading off to work, so that there’s no misunderstanding my full position on the issue of blogging about the CBC by people inside the CBC.
For me, nothing says CBC blogging policy more than the official blog of the CBC, and I find it to be reprehensible, unethical and beneath contempt.
Poor judgement, lack of common sense, and the antithesis of everything the CBC is supposed to stand for.
Plainly and simply, irresponsible.
And this example of the exercise of responsible journalism and public service says loudly and clearly that
CBC MANAGEMENT IS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.
So maybe they could indeed use the help of you and your friends.
PS
Unless of course you wish to state publicly that the example set at insidecbc.ca, by the CBC, is a manifestation of the high ethical standards and journalistic integrity to which all to which all employees should aspire.
The CBC is responsible for what goes on there, and no one else.
And nothing says company policy than something called “official”.
Sorry for the delay - though it may be an efficient use of time to collect Allan’s comments into batches and answer them together
Where to begin?
“The claim here is that no employer has a right to interfere with or set parameters on what you as an individual can do”? That’s a straw man, Allan - I certainly never said such a thing (quite the opposite, actually) and I don’t even think that’s what Grondzilla was getting at in his specific comments about a virtual soapbox.
Of course the CBC does make policies, and always has, as you say. Of course. But to say “the rules governing blogging are nothing new” is incorrect. Some elements of the, er, draft are old, and some are decidedly new.
For instance, the suggestion that the policy applies to all employees, not just journalists, goes well beyond anything in the JS&P, the various collective agreements or anyone’s contract. It’s new.
The JS&P - which I consider a very, very good policy document, if a bit dated - is clear on who it’s talking about. Take this section from V.1.2 on who cannot take a public political stand:
Sensible. If you are the public face of the corp, you represent the corp.
The blogging guidelines overstep this by a mile:
Extending journalistic policies to “any employee” business is new, and frankly probably not even within the purview of the Editor in Chief. I submit that it’s not the bloggers who are “re-negotiating the terms of employment” here.
I’m glad you understood the motivation behind the manifesto, even if you don’t like the document. I feel the same about these guidelines - a fair idea, poorly executed. Where I see a difference is that we made several efforts to get corporate input before writing (Bazay being the only one to respond) whereas this document was apparently crafted without consulting employees at all. (I don’t think they consulted the bloggers’ supervisors, either, though they are charged with the undefined “approval” process.) Such is the employer’s right - I just don’t think it produced a particularly clever document. In my experience, some degree of consultation produces better documentation and better buy-in.
In your next comment, you ask me to enumerate some of the “inevitable questions”. And I’d be glad to.
I think that employees and supervisors will have a very hard time interpreting the document in the following areas:
- Who it applies to
I already mentioned this, but in my opinion this document from the EiC applies existing policies to people that have never been subject to those policies before. The “janitor” example is insincere (they don’t work for CBC any more) but there are thousands of other employees who have never been governed by the JS&P or other policies meant to cover those who present a public face of the corporation. Bringing them into the journalistic fold is a bigger move than should be in the scope of a blogging policy. Wouldn’t this be HR? And if it’s the EiC, why now - when we are searching for
a new persontwo new people to take over those functions? Shouldn’t they make their own policies?- What constitutes “association”
I did in fact list some of these questions in my initial post, around 10 paragraphs in. Nobody understands what it means to “clearly identify” themselves as a CBC employee, nor what it means to have content that “clearly associates them” with CBC. There are no examples given, and I can tell you that the supervisors we are supposed to ask don’t know either.
In this day and age it’s pretty simple to figure out where I work without even looking at my blog - does this mean everything falls under the policy? And that doesn’t even get to Grondzilla’s point about a reasonable reader’s understanding of what’s company product and what’s private ramblings. Do readers get no credit, and is no disclaimer sufficient or even relevant?
- Defining the approval process
If I can make sense of the items above, I’m supposed to ask supervisor to give me permission to start/continue my blog. (So is Ouimet’s supervisor…) On what criteria should those supervisors grant or deny permission? When is it OK to say no? Should they (like NPR) “not unreasonably withhold” permission? Or do they have guidelines, or is it whimsy? And are they then responsible for everything I write going forward? Is it their job to check? Who would assume that liability? Wouldn’t it just be safer to say no? And since policies already exist to cover my conduct, why introduce a new level of permission?
- What’s a controversial subject
I have some questions (and others posted theirs on Inside The CBC) about what constitutes “advocacy”, a “controversial subject” and “material that could bring CBC into disrepute” - and again, these traditionally only apply to journalists. But this isn’t my main concern, and frankly I’m too tired to write any more tonight.
And I’ll use that excuse to politely ignore your challenge to defend or criticize Inside the CBC, a blog for which as you know I occasionally write. I will say that I believe the stories I’ve written there, and the comment moderation I’ve been responsible for, do live up to the standards to which both CBC and I personally aspire.
I’m aware of your contributions at insidecbc, and you probably know that I was NOT referring to YOUR temporary work at that website,
Why else would I be such a big fan of Paul G.
But let’s go through this …
Sorry for the delay - though it may be an efficient use of time to collect Allan’s comments into batches and answer them together
Where to begin?
“The claim here is that no employer has a right to interfere with or set parameters on what you as an individual can do”? That’s a straw man, Allan - I certainly never said such a thing (quite the opposite, actually) and I don’t even think that’s what Grondzilla was getting at in his specific comments about a virtual soapbox.
What straw man? It seems to me that
Grondzilla says:
- (Paul’s blog) has nothing to do with CBC policy, image or, frankly, any damned thing they should have a say about.
- Only in some twisted Bizarro world is it (Paul’s blog) a place your employers should have an iota of input
- it (Paul’s blog) would be none of their business
- ultimately, it’s none of their damned business.
So where is the straw man when I say that the claim here is “that no employer has a right to interfere with or set parameters on what you as an individual can do”?
Of course the CBC does make policies, and always has, as you say. Of course. But to say “the rules governing blogging are nothing new” is incorrect. Some elements of the, er, draft are old, and some are decidedly new.
For instance, the suggestion that the policy applies to all employees, not just journalists, goes well beyond anything in the JS&P, the various collective agreements or anyone’s contract. It’s new.
There are more than journalistic policies being discussed in JS & P.
For example, guidelines for determining a Conflict of Interest, and they cover ALL employees.
For example:
(from Section 5 - Personnel Standards)
“2.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s policy and guidelines on conflict of interest recognize five basic principles:
(a) The law requires employees to place, and appear to place, the interests of their employer above their own interests.
(b) Public funds must be spent with prudence and probity, and the CBC’s reputation must be protected.
(c) The integrity of any organization ultimately is shaped by the individual integrity of each of its employees, in their work and outside.
(d) Decisions by the Corporation that affect employees in conflict of interest situations must not be, nor appear to be, arbitrary. Such decisions must seek to strike a fair balance between protecting the legitimate interests of the Corporation and those of the employees concerned.”
So, this section, covering ALL employees, says it’s THE LAW that “employees … place … the interests of their employer above their own interests.
“the CBC’s reputation must be protected.”
“in their work and outside”
And you Paul, and everyone else who reported for work there today, have agreed to this.
Now is there something in the union agreement that over-rides these principles?
Who it applies to
I think we both recognize that a blogging policy that covers all employees must be in line with existing Human Resources policies that cover all employees.
What constitutes “association”
“Nobody understands what it means to “clearly identify” themselves as a CBC employee, nor what it means to have content that “clearly associates them” with CBC”
“the supervisors we are supposed to ask don’t know either.”
Paul, you’re on shaky ground here.
For one, making a blanket statement about everybody, including supervisors.
I wonder how you came to reach such a conclusion, and if your co-workers would agree.
Apparently the obvious is too much for people working at the CBC.
If someone posts a picture of themselves holding a CBC microphone and says they currently work at the CBC …
If someone posts a picture of themselves at work at the CBC …
If someone posts a picture of themselves, as Tod has done, wearing a vest with a CBC logo on it and identifies themselves as a reporter for the CBC …
… they might just be “clearly identifying” themselves with the CBC.
But hey, what do I know. I don’t work for the CBC, so I’m not covered by your blanket statement.
Do readers get no credit, and is no disclaimer sufficient or even relevant?
I suggested the disclaimer and support it’s use.
I think it’s relevant, or why else would I have brought it up?
Is it sufficient?
I’d like to think it was, but only time can tell, or people choosing to post a disclaimer using the tiniest font possible.
If you can be proud to work at the CBC, then can you not also be proud to assert that the content of your blog is an expression of independent thought, and not necessarily approved by the CBC?
- Defining the approval process
Let me approach this by asking you and your fellow Manifesto use your creative imaginations to suggest even one example of a circumstance that warrant denying someone to blog about the CBC.
Let me offer a start.
Someone, let’s say a “Drone”, makes it clear that they intend to publish a blog that reveals the content of internal documents not meant for public view.
Should they be allowed to do so?
How about someone who openly speculates about the sexual orientation of fellow employees?
You understand what I’m saying here, Paul.
There are indeed very obvious behaviours that are intolerable and offensive to an employer and to employees.
Did you say “new level” of permission?
Is a blog not a new level of expression?
Do you think that Robert Fisher would go ahead and work for TVO concurrent with his employment at the CBC without discussing it with the CBC first, even if it’s a gardening show?
Perhaps the CBC would like an opportunity to offer Robert his own show for this subject under the umbrella of the CBC before he takes his impressive talents to a competitor.
Is the internet a competitor to the CBC?
It just might be.
My point is that there are indeed circumstances when it is prudent, wise and only fair play to approach a supervisor for approval to pursue an outside interest where it’s evident to all that you are a current employee of the CBC.
- What’s a controversial subject
You’re tired.
I’ll take this part up another time.
OK…
The straw man I refer to is your stretch from Grondzilla’s “it” - meaning this blog - to your “what an individual can do”. When you first wrote that, I read it as an assertion that the company cannot set *any* parameters, which is clearly not what we are talking about. You went on to discuss other parameters - protecting lives, privacy etc. - but perhaps all of us are only talking about blogging rules and should let it go.
Now, to this business of who the “journalistic” guidelines now apply to.
The very introduction to the JS&P states the purpose of the document: to “provide the policy framework within which CBC journalism seeks to meet the expectations and obligations it faces.”
It’s about journalism, not HR. There’s certainly overlap, and the section on conflict of interest is one of the few that refers specifically to “all employees”. CoI is an HR matter and a journalistic one, deserving more scrutiny in a public broadcaster than almost anywhere else (the very words “public broadcaster” indicate two separate levels of trust to maintain.)
When it refers to “the law”, I suspect it actually means “the law” (not “the policy”). If I cheat with public funds, I go to jail, not to the CBC gulag. There are myriad rules governing this outside of any CBC policy.
But this is beside the point. The journalism rules - which make up the bulk of the JS&P - have never to my knowledge been enforced on non-journalistic enterprises. What the draft blogging guidelines suggest is that they should. That’s new.
It’s repeated again and again in the JS&P - see 1.1.1, Application:
The policies in this book apply to all information programs and to all CBC online journalistic material. These programs include news and all aspects of public affairs (political, economic, social) as well as journalistic activities in agriculture, arts, music, religion, science, sports and variety.
Note that it doesn’t even mention non-journalistic CBC shows, such as drama and comedy. Most employee blogs are neither CBC, nor journalistic, nor programs - it just doesn’t make sense to treat them like a nationally-funded news enterprise.
This is going to sound like I’m being dramatic, but if the JS&P applies holus bolus to all non-journalistic publications, then every blog including this one needs to be shut down. You simply can’t blog like you run a national news broadcast. I for one don’t have the time, resources, or interest. I don’t have a research staff, an editor, a law department, an ombudsman.
Read the rest of the JS&P, and see if you these assertions describe a typical blog.
Section I:
- I must seek advice and assistance from the Law Department when difficulties arrise. (Do they deal with personal matters?)
- I’m bound by the Broadcasting Act. I need to operate in English and French.
Section III
- I must reflect a regional audience and a range of opinions.
- I receive annual funding from the Parliament of Canada. I should acknowledge all funding sources on air.
Section IV
- Surveys: any poll (like the one in my sidebar) must conform to scientific methodology and standards. I need to get permission from a senior officer in information programming before starting such a poll. The results must display margin of error.
And on and on. That’s just the first quarter of the document.
All those rules make sense for actual taxpayer funded journalism. They make no sense whatsoever for a personal blog. The assertion that the JS&P covers non-CBC conduct is a huge step that falls outside the scope of this document.
It should also be noted that Esther Enkin’s careful distinction between guideline and policy applies here. The JS&P is approved by the Board of Directors and is official policy.
Association… you’re right, I shouldn’t make blanket statements. My comments were based on conversations with all the other CBC bloggers I know, and with a few of their supervisors. Just because I never met anyone who understood the guidelines doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
And you’ve ignored all the grey situations I posited in my original document. Do you have an answer for those? I’d be delighted if you do - perhaps you could have them inserted in the guidelines, because they are absent there.
Disclaimers… I do understand your position on the matter, and I agree with it. I don’t understand the CBC’s position, because there isn’t one.
I think the examples you provide are specious, because there are already rock-solid rules governing corporate secrets and employee privacy. If Drone did either of the things you suggest they could be fired with or without blogging guidelines. So no, I’m not sure what you are getting at.
And I don’t understand how supervisor permission would even work in your example. Would Drone go to their supervisor and say, “I plan to publicly break the conditions of my contract and corporate HR policies. May I?” Or would they write lots of things about their kids, and then one day screw up?
You want a more concrete example? Ouimet gets exposed, and has to ask his/her supervisor’s permission to keep writing. Would you like to be the supervisor who says yes? What if my supervisor? Would you endorse everything I’ve written, or may write in the future? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe a qualified yes - as long as I don’t write about certain things. I’m glad you know the answers to these scenarios, because on first blush nobody inside the building was clear on them.
Your point about outside interests and Robert Fisher are fair, and they are explicitly covered in the JS&P.
As for whether or not a blog is CBC’s competition, now THAT is an interesting question.
OK, once again I’m spent. And I’m posting this at lunchtime, which still doesn’t conform with what’s allowed under the draft guidelines.
You may be amused to know that it *does* conform with Policy (Policy 2.5.1: Corporate Information Technology (IT) Security and Employee Use of IT Assets) which states that “some limited personal use will be tolerated”. But the blogging guidelines are apparently more strict. Luckily I’m not “channelling” it through the corporate “e-mail system.”
You have to admit that part needs a rewrite.
I’m also going to leave off here because I’ve now written twice as many words responding to this piece as the original item contained. Using those 3,000 words to write a dozen Innocuous Unaffiliated Items might be better for my welfare.
[…] did this at the behest of my friend Paul, who writes a really nifty blog that recently stuck it to the man. Relieved, I went to my PC (Yes, I’m still using my Amiga, damn it!) and opened up the […]