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.

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

“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.

- 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.

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:

No employee who is employed by the Corporation on a full-time basis as a producer, a supervisor of news or information programming, an editor, a journalist, a reporter, an on-air personality, or who is a designated management employee or primarily responsible to represent the Corporation in its contact with the public…

Sensible. If you are the public face of the corp, you represent the corp.

The blogging guidelines overstep this by a mile:

These guidelines apply to any personal blogging or other self-publishing such as podcasting by CBC/Radio-Canada employees….

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 person two 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.

The CBC is responsible for what goes on there, and no one else.
And nothing says company policy than something called “official”.

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.

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.

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.