Any CBC employee who wants to start a personal blog which “clearly associates them with CBC/Radio-Canada” now requires their supervisor’s permission, according to a new policy “guideline document.”
The unsigned document [ed: The document came with an email that noted which office developed the guidelines] also states that this rule applies “not only to CBC/Radio-Canada journalists but to any corporation employee.”
Besides what you’d expect in a document like this, like not using the CBC’s resources (email, bandwidth, time, etc.) to update your blog, the policy states that such bloggers are “expected to behave in a way that is consistent with our journalistic philosophy, editorial values and corporate policies.”
Further, the blog cannot advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion. It should also avoid controversial subjects or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.
To start and maintain a blog of this kind, you need your supervisor’s approval.
To be clear, this policy applies only to personal blogs where the author identifies themselves as a CBC employee. But if you’re writing a truly transparent, personal blog, sometimes you want to talk about what your job is. It’s part of who we are. But now, if you do that, you apparently fall within the scope of this document.
What do you think? Reasonable? Heavy-handed?
——————-
UPDATE 1: This comment was posted by Esther Enkin, CBC News’ Acting Editor in Chief:
Hi all: Just to set the record straight –the guidelines Tod refers to are just that - guidelines. Policies need to be approved by the Board.
As the digital world continues to expand, we are trying to provide guidance for CBC staff that is consistent with existing practices and ensure the same high ethical and quality standards that are hallmarks of CBC.
This particular set of guidelines is consistent with existing practice re outside work or publication - just as one must do now when publishing in traditional media.
As for this being “unsigned”, Jon Dube, a Director at cbc.ca sent this to his staff recently. In the accompanying note he said these guidelines came from the Editor in chief’s office. Not really anonymous. [Note from Tod: When it came to me and other media, it didn’t have Jon Dube’s note attached.]
As with all guidelines, there is always room for discussion.
UPDATE 2: After Esther Enkin clarified the policy/guideline, I asked her to explain the difference between the two, in terms of enforceability. This is her reply:
It’s a little greyer than that. The “little blue book” (the Journalistic Standards and Practices) are policy — they have been approved by the Board, as have the H.R. Policies governing conflict of interest and outside work, on which the blogging stuff is based. It is official corporate policy.
Having said that, the journalism handbook is mostly written to be a GUIDE, but the Editor in Chief has been given the responsibility to have the last word on the interpretation. So the blogging guidelines fall in the same category — an ongoing responsibility for the standard and quality of the journalism.
UPDATE 3: Kempton has posted, for contrast, a copy of Sun Microsystems’ blogging policy.
UPDATE 4: CBC officially clarifies the document, saying it was only an early draft of a proposed guideline.
|
Comments below | See also: News & Journalism |
| Email this | Posted at 11:54 am (03 Aug 2007) |
Extremely heavy handed. Potentially not even constitutionally legal. Telling employees what they can and can’t do or say when not at work (except as it pertains to non-disculosure/trade secrets etc.) and not using company resources I would say puts them on shaky and testable legal ground. It also shows a lack of understanding of the internet. What is the difference between say a blog and a facebook note? Obviously there are differences technically, but I would take, from reading this, that employees aren’t allowed to post any information on facebook that advocate for anything and at any rate they should get their supervisors approval before even starting a facebook page.
I can understand having a policy about what journalists do or don’t do but ‘any employee’ ?? If a media librarian or desktop support person starts a blog to express their opposition to global poverty, on their own time - in what way should the CBC even have the right to say they can’t ?
God forbid that people find out that CBC employees have opinions! What, you mean they’re real people?
I can see, up to a point, the concern about what these employees blog reflecting on the CBC. But, why not just insist that they have a disclaimer, as you do, that this is personal opinion and not that of the CBC? I’d be pissed off if my work told me I had to censor myself, after work hours, outside the office, and on my own time.
I wonder what the reaction from the bloggers will be… Because they might not be allowed to tell us!
hmmm, interesting. I think there will be some question as to the “clearly associates them with CBC/Radio-Canada” part. If I have a blog and never say the word “CBC”, but say TV reporter, the city I work in, and talk about stories I worked on, would that fall under this policy then? A lot of people could connect the dots and so when I complain about my boss or a story they know exactly who I am and that I work for the CBC. If Heather Hiscox (for example…insert any well known personality here) has a blog and puts up a few photos herself, she wouldn’t need to say CBC for people to connect the dots…but it’s the “clearly” part that might let her get away with it.
Like so many policies the line isn’t black and white. But then we don’t work in a black and white business do we.
Despotic…
Partisan politics? What’s an objective measure of what’s political and what’s not? Is net neutrality political? Is the personal political?
“Further, the blog cannot advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion. It should also avoid controversial subjects or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.”
Hey, this draconian policy is enough to bring the CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.
This policy, which is supposed to apply “to any corporation employee” is clearly in contravention of Canadian Constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. Its also being applied “post-hoc”, and as such,is probably a violation of the employee’s contract.
Further, it certainly meets the definition of unconcienable : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionable
Who’s running the CBC anyway, George Bush and Dick Cheney?
Heavy handed. Beyond any doubt.
What if my blog pre-dates this policy, or, indeed, my employment with the CBC?
Does, say, calling for the safe release of Alan Johnston fall under advocating for a cause? Is the Online News Association a group? Can I not advocate on their behalf?
And if I were not a journalist, why would my blog have to be consistent with any journalistic philosophy, let alone the CBC’s? It’s my blog! Or Livejournal or MySpace or whatever.
I don’t believe the the CBC or any company has the right to “approve” or “disapprove” of what an employee does outside of their job. If the CBC is worried their employee’s are going to say anything horrible about the internal workings of the CBC they should subscribe to their employee’s RSS feed and read.
Any employee with a brain knows that saying anything about their employer that may reveal trade secrets or company information not meant for outside the four walls of the company office is not a smart thing regardless.
Why can they tell you what you can and can’t do on your personal time? I understand it’s part of the employment contract but… There has to be a line between professional and personal life. If they are going to pay you to follow their rules alls fair! They can’t tell you what you can and can’t say in other public forums, online or off.
Heavy Handed,
This a post facto action that was not included in the employment conditions of any employee up to now. For example many areas of CBC are under a contract (wisdom of Robert R) and this was not a direct term of employment, There are many non journalists at CBC with a blog, an opinion presumably on a variety of topics including Robert R. A corporation has no right to retroactively ask you to consent to a blog. Further to that most supervisors I know there have little knowledge or insticts in these situations especially in areas of IT, HR etc.
On an ethical level it is suspect with the exception of journalists/hosts (the public face of the corporation). In the end the corporation should not be entitled to control aspects outside their immediate purvey. There could be an extension to standing on a street corner and shouting to the world about whatever topic pleases you to any other type of communication you choose, music, art ????????????
Way over the line.
Personal blogs are nothing like letters to the editor. Letters to the editor have a broad circulation and usually express opinions about something in the news. Personal blogs are an extension of the author’s personality and usually have a limited readership. You can’t compare the two quite so glibly.
Very heavy handed- it will depend on actual implimentation- ie. if it’s there for show, but no one really cares, that’s one thing, but how it’s enforced will make all the difference. Seems a little machivellian on the control side
What’s next: Telling employees they need to have any personal car purchase approved?
I think it’s appropriate to tell employees they have to notify a supervisor of any personally identifiable blog that in any way mentions work — journalists do have an obligation to have a higher degree of transparency in their lives than other people, given the nature of their work. But requiring approval for blogs is dumb, because it doesn’t actually solve the problem — which is letting the employer be aware of what the employee is writing.
TTFN
Travis
It’s sad really. Toward the end of the lockout, and after, there was much discussion of what would change as a result of the new technology whose effectiveness was demonstrated during the lockout.
As it turns out the answer is nothing at all. The CBC has adopted some of the technology in a piecemeal fashion but that does not, in and of itself, indicate change. The internet or ‘web 2.0′ has brought with it social and cultural changes. Changes in people’s expectations and the way they interact. Without recognizing this adopting the technology and terminology isn’t tremendously helpful.
As an example - let’s go back to the birth of email at the CBC and pretend that we were reading the following:
CBC Email Policy:
We, like you, are all very excited about the arrival of email at the CBC and the efficiencies it promises to provide we would however caution you to remember that as an employee of the CBC you must constantly be vigilant in maintaining CBC’s policies and overall reputation. Before sending external email please do the following.
1) Type and proofread the email. Check the journalistic standards and practices to make sure that the email is stylistically appropriate.
2) Submit copies of the email to your supervisor, CBC’s legal department and CBC communications for vetting and/or approval (please allow 1-2 weeks for approval). Should the email require changes, as noted by any of the above, please make necessary changes and resubmit.
3) Phone the person to whom the email is addressed to ensure that they know that the email will arrive and that they agree to accept said email
4) Fax a standard non-disclosure form to the intended recipient to insure that they understand that email from the CBC is confidential. Have the recipient fax back a signed and notarized copy of said document.
Once singed approval from the appropriate departments has been obtained as well as the signed non-disclosure agreement send your email and let the efficiencies begin. As always the CBC welcomes change and is excited about the future.
As I recall the CBC has already lost fights in the past when they tried to to control the outside activities of employees. Surely there are better things that these folks could do with their time?
I hope I don’t have to get my comment posts here pre-approved!
Perhaps they’ll officially release this policy in a week’s time - on the one year anniversary of the CBC Blogging Manifesto.
Then I guess we can all blog anonymously, and say whatever we want. That’s sure to put the Corp in a better light, right?
Gaul Porbould
Civil Servant for a Certain Public Broadcaster That Must Not Be Named.
All this will do is drive people underground. It’s self-defeating.
Draconian. Unconscionable. Stupid.
We must stop this.
Wow, this is *way* over the top. I can see CBC having an issue of people blogging on company time (when they are supposed to be working, and being paid to do so) but to say that an employee can’t have free speech on their own time is completely unacceptable.
Why can’t an employee just have a statement on their footer saying that the views that they express are their own, and may not be the views of the corporation?
Paul’s got a very good point, above… transparency breeds accountability. Forcing the personal blogs to be anonymous will only put the CBC in a bad situation.
How could the ‘powers that be’ be so short-sighted in this matter?
So here’s a thought…What if a gay journalist wanted to blog about life as a gay journalist? It’s an interesting topic, and should be well within his/her rights but in some parts of the country, that would be ‘controversial’ and, with certain individuals, ‘could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute’. So what then?
Management can drop dead.
It’s amazing how CBC management tries to make employees think that they, along with the staplers and microphones, are CBC property. I don’t know how many CBC managers read this; but read this: YOU DON’T OWN US!
There are only 2 kinds of time; the CBC’s time and our time. When it’s our time we get to do what we want, without asking permission first. Whether that be blogging, moonlighting, chasing hookers while drunk or just letting the phone ring and ring when you need us after-hours…our time is OUR time.
I don’t get why management tarts itself up as badass all the time. Truth is that the slightest pushback usually is enough to make them back down about 75% of the time.
Of course its heavy handed. I can remeber when the excellent journalist, Dale Goldhawk was thrown off air (!!!) as the host of “Cross Country Check-up” because in his private life he wrote in his news union’s paper, that NAFTA wasn’t a ‘Great Idea.’ He was president of the union at the time.
The CBC is far too controlling, far too impressed with itself and far too powerful in actions against its employees.
It needs something or someone to knock it down a peg. (or a group of someones)
Justin in what way is a gay journalist controversial — hahahahah!
OMG!
Ow. That hurts my freedom. No wonder everyone thinks my generation takes nothing seriously.
Does the CBC know what the internet is? Do they think it’s a “series of tubes” it can cut off?
And if it applies to “any employee”… does that mean the security and maintenance staff as well?
It sounds like the CBC will make up rules as it goes along, arbitrarily deciding what qualifies as blogging, and how to define a group, cause, or opinion.
Stoopid & laughable.
“What’s next: Telling employees they need to have any personal car purchase approved?”
Possibly: A few years ago in Eugene, Oregon, the Guild had to fight management because they didn’t want to allow a news staffer to ride his motorcycle to assignments.
Didn’t want sources to think they were the motorcycle-riding types, I suppose…
If the CBC couldn’t fire Sook-Yin Lee for having unsimulated sex in Shortbus, they’re going to have a pretty hard time enforcing this nebulous piece of social control. It really reeks of serfdom. You’re technically free, but you can’t do anything that your employer doesn’t like. It’s depressing, but as a US citizen, it’s a little refreshing to see that companies north of the border occasionally act as stupidly and arrogantly as they do down here. Give em hell, Canada. You’re supposed to be more sensible than us.
My first question would be to ask the CBC what content they would allow and what content would not meet their criteria.
My best guess is that a minority, gay, socialist, athiest could defend the plight of the Palestinians in Isreal with no problems at CBC.
However a conservative Jew or Christian Canadian who believes in a creator and defends Isreal would be edited out by CBC because it would not “hold to CBC values”
A couple of years ago a study showed the Canadian population was comprised of 14 % very left politically yet CBC staff were 43% very left politically. CBC was asked to name one Conservative personality and were unable to do so.
All I would ask of the CBC is to measure the cross section of Canadian veiwpoints and try to cover most of them in a reasonable manner. Apply this to CBC bloggers as well. Many thanks.
What about any other art, music, or creative writing we do? Should we run this by the powers that be? What about Facebook? Do we need to watch what we say?
This is one of those shockingly ill-conceived statements that is going to keep somebody very busy on this holiday long weekend, because the story has made it to boingboing, pretty much the planet’s most read blog.
Let me get this straight…if the part-time, night shift custodian decides to express her bloggy opinion on the controversial subject of, say, religion versus abortion rights, she has to get approval from her “supervisor”. So, the supervisor in charge of part-time, night shift custodial help must then vet said opinions, determine corporation policy and either allow or forbid such personal expression. That is fucking brilliant (hey I don’t work for the CBC, I can cuss).
I would urge all employees of the CBC that care to blog to perform due diligence. Each and every post, update, note and thought should be promptly emailed to each and every supervisor, manager, department head, federal minister, prime minister, prospective heads of the corporation and Rick Mercer. You just can’t be too damned careful these days. The last thing that Canadians need to find out is that the employees of the CBC are thinking, after all, their bosses sure as hell aren’t. The only way to ensure the excellence of the nation’s public broadcaster is through the constant and continual examination and control of employee thought and opinion.
Sure, it seems like a lot of work but I am sure there are macros available that will allow those opinionated underlings to expedite the emailing of their personal opinions and thoughts. Perhaps some kindly soul would gather the email addresses of all of the supervisors, managers and other concerned parties into a hypertext link list to facilitate the approval process. While the absolute control of opinion is vital, we can’t overlook the importance of efficiency.
I am still laughing…
Having watch them and listened to them for years I thought expressing partisan political opinion was entirely consistent with our journalistic philosophy, editorial values and corporate policies!?.
Time to send this dinosaur packing.
And what the heck is “journalistic philosophy”?
The CBC is not trying to stifle opinions of bloggers who work at the CBC, but does not want those blogger to write in such a manner that: “clearly associates them with CBC/Radio-Canada”.
Surely that is a fair request to make of it’s employees. Of course we all know about the CBC’s policy of fairness to all pov’s, and we wouldn’t want rogue bloggers to give the impression that the CBC has biases.
CBC, I got a news flash for ya…what I do in my personal time is MY BUSINESS. If I want to post about CBC on my blog..positive or negative and I don’t give away any corp secrets (all two of them), that’s my business. It’s call freedom of speech.
Won’t be long before they decide they must pre-approve vacation destinations, or marriages, or what neighbourhood I choose to live in.
Hmmmm..I wonder what Ouimet is gonna do.
What they’re basically saying is that if you announce yourself as an employee of CBC and express an opinion then you’re working and should behave accordingly.
It’s typical corporate practice. The official policy is strict so they can shut down anything they don’t like but typically your manager will interpret it more sensibly.
If you think this is bad then you should try my job. My employer owns the intellectual property of all my thoughts, twenty four hours a day.
“Justin in what way is a gay journalist controversial — hahahahah!
OMG!”
RU Nuts (Allan) I don’t know where you live, but in Canada - outside the big cities (and even to a lesser extent inside them) homophobia is still pretty rampant and I did say ‘with certain individuals) - maybe you should take up reading?
The policy is simply long overdue.
It’s the CBC belatedly exercising common sense, and was inevitable.
As smart as some of the commenters above believe their views to be, they will be embarrassed by their myopic and childish opinions in the days ahead.
Sorry if that hurts a few of you, but the grownups here will be able to handle it.
I can perhaps help you out of your collective misery by reminding you that we live in a real world, not just a blog world.
Some of you are simply pretentious rebels who have no idea what real responsibility is, let alone a basic understanding of human rights, beyond the right to own an ipod once you have enough money.
Both parties in an employment contract have rights.
But few of you seem to know what those rights are, because you’re too lazy to find out.
It’s hard to detect anyone here who can see the obvious aspects of anything to do with blogging as it relates to the workplace.
People are busy finding another excuse and reason to resent their bosses, and looking for loopholes.
I worked in the undergound press for a while.
I know something about the price you must be prepared to pay to exercise your right to free speech, free expression.
I know also about people who shoot off their mouth thinking that they know something, and that the world should fit in to their shortsighted vision.
That is, until they become parents, or managers, or start a business themselves.
Then their tune changes dramatically.
Look where you are right now.
Do you think you have freedom of speech on this blog?
The best bet would probably be for everyone to start a blog now and post something - it does say that you can’t ’start a blog’ once it’s up it’s apparently ok and if the policy isn’t official yet….
Not uncommon… the hospital I work for is trying to do even more than this.
According to my union rep, they don’t want anyone to even say on-line that we work for the corporation, let alone blog about work.
I think it’s ridiculous that they are saying I can’t state the simple fact that I am employed by ****(deleted, for obvious reasons) Hospital.
Insane.
What a load of dirt stupid managerial codswallop!
The moment they try to enforce this they’ll find themselves slap with a lawsuit for violation of Charter Rights. Who do these retards think they are? As this spirals into a even bigger noise from people’s reactions it will be very amusing to watch as the people responsible (who will never ever admit to it) try to tapdance their way away from the big stinky poo they just dropped on the floor.
What a bunch of wankers.
Did anyone read this line:
“To be clear, this policy applies only to personal blogs where the author identifies themselves as a CBC employee”
If I had a company that was non-bias broadcast oriented, and had employees with strong opinions… I could easily imagine being concerned about general consensus. CBC is saying… “[Please, have a blog. Have a life… just be careful.]”
I’m an openly gay CBC employee who has a profile on Facebook and every gay person I know at CBC who has a Facebook account declares they are interested in the same gender. And everyone else declares they are interested in the opposite gender.
Now being openly gay could be considered controversial amongst the older, often, not always, anti-gay demographic, not to mention a good many members of the Conservative caucus and the entire Conservative voter base.
And if it is controversial that declaration “clearly associates them with CBC/Radio Canada” well, boys and girls, the days when CBC stood for “Canada’s Biggest Closet” are long gone (and it was never true anyway, gay people at CBC were and are a minority).
As for Facebook, Esther Enkin who sent out the Facebook memo is not currently a member (I checked) but David Downey who asked for it from radio is a member with a minimal profile. And another CBC bureaucrat who helped draft the memo is also not a member of Facebook…..So if they are not part of the community, if they haven’t explored it, how do they know how it works and how can they tell us what to do in various communities we belong to?
As for the blogging rules, one reason there were so many blogs during the lockout was that most of them were already existing when Rabinovitch and Stursberg tossed us out in the street and the blogs were repurposed during the lockout and then went back to their original focus after the lockout ended. That was EXACTLY TWO YEARS AGO and only now does CBC management realize that CBC people are still blogging. I doubt that the policy would could stand any challenge either if the Guild had to grieve it or take it arbitration or even if it ended up in court, because they haven’t done anything about it in the past five years.
Nola, I’ve clearly associated myself with the CBC since the day I got a job there. I blogged about it. I can’t unring a bell.
Am I to go through seven years of blog postings to redact anything that might be in violation of this policy, which I first heard about this week?
“The official policy is strict so they can shut down anything they don’t like…” Ay, there’s the rub.
BTW, the king of the pretentious rebels has heard about the new policy: This page has been Boingboinged.
Hi all: Just to set the record straight –the guidelines Tod refers to are just that - guidelines. Policies need to be approved by the Board.
As the digital world continues to expand, we are trying to provide guidance for CBC staff that is consistent with existing practices and ensure the same high ethical and quality standards that are hallmarks of CBC.
This particular set of guidelines is consistent with existing practice re outside work or publication - just as one must do now when publishing in traditional media.
As for this being “unsigned”, Jon Dube, a Director at cbc.ca sent this to his staff recently. In the accompanying note he said these guidelines came from the Editor in chief’s office. Not really anonymous.
As with all guidelines, there is always room for discussion.
Esther Enkin
Acting Editor in Chief
What did I say about loopholes, Justin?
And all this time you’ve been claiming that you could come up with better policies as if you were sitting on the CRTC.
Now you want to circumvent the spirit of a policy while insisting you are following the letter of the law.
When did you first begin to think that your ideas would be taken seriously?
Or was that, as far as I can tell, never a consideration?
Are you at all cognizant of the fact that a sensible, corporate-wide policy on blogging about the work place is in your best interest?
Oh, I forgot.
You don’t work at the CBC.
Anyone knows if this memo has been sent to French speaking employees? It’s nowhere to be found…
So, this new rule would apply to CBC employees working overseas who maintain blogs to keep in touch with colleagues and family? (i.e. during the Olympics; Special events, etc.)
If you choose to email a large number of them, from your personal email address to give some news, will you fall under this rule? What if the spouse post these informations and pictures on her/his own blog?
What if someone blogs about your activities without you knowing about it? Something like “My /%?/”$ ex who’s a journalist/tech/whatever at the CBC had really sh”/$%” schedules and that’s why we were not able to make it as a couple // he was so NOT working well, I wonder why he kept his job at the CBC // …”
And you two think the CBC should be allowing this kind of thing.
That’s more than astounding, that’s reprehensible.
And proves the point.
How can the CBC tell its employees “Further, the blog cannot advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion.” Thats what their news is. Nobody I know here in Calgary watches it, because it can’t be trusted.
I suppose it is a good thing that employees are discouraged from blogging their political opinions. It would be hard to find a CBC employee with a viewpoint that would be worth reading.
This is just the nervous tic of the Corp left over from the lockout. The brass never recovered from our massive act of rebellion blogging.
I understand that we journalists are held to a certain standards even in our private lives. I’m fine with that, it’s part of being a reporter — I can’t volunteer for the local chapter of BirthRight or the local Planned Parenthood because I cover health and abortion is such a hot button topic. Fair enough.
I can’t go blabbing on and on about my actual work on my blog before its broadcast; fair enough.
But if I want to blog about the office environment, the collective agreement, or my struggles to be a parent and a reporter — that’s none of their business. It is not an outside activity that conflicts with being a reporter. It is not showing an overt bias in my story-telling.
What they really don’t want, even if it’s subconciously, is for us to get out of their control and grasp again. Because its own reporters and staff set loose on the Corpse was a nightmare for management during the lockout. And there will be another round of bargaining when this agreement expires.
I only have two weeks left with Mother Corp (just moved for my hubby’s work and don’t want to leave my awesome job), but even if I was not leaving, I would be throwing a fit about this.
I lockout blogged. I write a personal blog now. Between the pictures of my kids, I write. And what I right there, so long as it meets the outside activities clause in the policies, is NONE of management’s business.
Actually Dan, there are an awful lot of people in Calgary and pretty much everywhere else in Canada that trust CBC News implicitly. I’ve talked to alot of them. No one thinks that journalists don’t have opinions or biases, they’re not robots but I think that most Canadians agree that the CBC is fair and that’s all people really want.
I take exception to Justin’s remark at 8:54.
I find this extremely offensive.
And when I objected to it, you leave out my complaint. and yet let Justin’ remark continue to be displayed.
Your editing of my comments here is clearly designed to provoke me.
Apparently you have no fear of being held accountable.
As I find myself getting more of my information from digital media, it would be nice to have a CBC that understands how this stuff works. The reference to “ethical & quality standards” is a bit disappointing but I suppose it sounds a lot better than “we’ve always done it this way” or “we’re afraid what you might say”. Blogging gives us a window on to the news that’s personal and unique. Corporations can’t do that. If the CBC’s mandate is to inform us, then we need a diversity of voices. Gad! This is Canada! Shouldn’t that be a no-brainer?
I agree with Allan Sorensen. You people need to grow up. We’re (taxpayers) paying your salaries. And all you people seem to do is whine on blogs about everything, instead of doing real work.
Allan is right: Both parties in an employment contract have rights. Lots of companies have code of conduct policies. You think your special, but you’re not
I sure hope the CBC isn’t paying for someone’s time to write THIS blog. What a waste of taxpayer money
>>>>>>>
The policy is simply long overdue.
It’s the CBC belatedly exercising common sense, and was inevitable.
As smart as some of the commenters above believe their views to be, they will be embarrassed by their myopic and childish opinions in the days ahead.
Sorry if that hurts a few of you, but the grownups here will be able to handle it.
I can perhaps help you out of your collective misery by reminding you that we live in a real world, not just a blog world.
Some of you are simply pretentious rebels who have no idea what real responsibility is, let alone a basic understanding of human rights, beyond the right to own an ipod once you have enough money.
Both parties in an employment contract have rights.
But few of you seem to know what those rights are, because you’re too lazy to find out.
It’s hard to detect anyone here who can see the obvious aspects of anything to do with blogging as it relates to the workplace.
People are busy finding another excuse and reason to resent their bosses, and looking for loopholes.
Actually, that’s not as uncommon as thought. My own employer had me sign an NDA a quarter-inch thick, and there has been people called up on the carpet for negative posts about their job while on Facebook.
Justin, how can a state-run, taxpayer-funded news organization be “fair” when there are no conservative newscasters? I laugh at how some people call the CBC “fair”. Seen the Avi Lewis - Hirsi Ali interview? On the rare occasions I watch the CBC, I am dismayed at the level of groupthink and questions that demonize anyone who is not part of their groupthink. Unbelieivably, I watched Fox News and was taken aback at the diversity of opinion. Such diversity of thought is strictly verboten at CBC.
The “update” isn’t very reassuring. It has some nice weasel-words:
“This particular set of guidelines is consistent with existing practice re outside work or publication - just as one must do now when publishing in traditional media.”
Riiiiight …
Let’s take it to other “outside work or publication.” If a set builder wants to write a book about, say, fishing, and include a story about how he gaught the big one while working on location in Newfoundland, he’s going to need the CBC’s approval? I don’t think so. Ditto if that same set builder wants to build decks as a sideline - sure, its outside work, but there is no way that they need their supervisor’s approval.
Management in most businesses needs to learn what the principle of “de minimus” in law really stands for - that some things, from a legal standpoint, are trifling matters, and best ignored. A person’s blog is such a “trifle”, unless and until it starts either revealing trade secrets, defaming people, or going in direct competition with the employer - in those cases, there are already legal remedies, and no ill-thought “guideline” is needed.
This is not the same as, for example, telling employees that they can’t use corporate email servers and web servers to surf for porn (all right - bad example - we all know that for many people, the internet really is for porn
Here’s something management better think about - ISPs aren’t held accountable for the content of emails because they don’t monitor them. If the CBC wants to control people’s blog contents, they’re also opening up a huge can of worms in terms of legal liability.
I suggest that everyone with a blog put the line “I am a CBC employee” in one of their posts. If they really want to enforce this stupid rule, make them wade through tens of thousands of internet blogs to do it.
I am Spartacus!
Can I blog controversial stuff if I am “casual” or just a “temp”?
My comments are made after reading this short original blog entry (without the benefit of reading the full “guideline”) and reading Ms. Esther Enkin’s note of clarification.
My quick personal impression is that CBC is implicitly assuming it is acceptable to use the old world heavy-handed legal languages in the new world of blogging. Sure, it may be the perfectly safe (some cynics may say cover-your-ass) guideline to have. But is this the right attitude to have in the new age of more open and free communications?
The new world of open source and crowd-sourcing is that the “crowd” and the “regular people” may sometimes be smarter than the “experts” or the mangers/supervisors. If blogger needs to get his/her “supervisor’s permission” first, then where it negates the many potential benefits from employees blogging. I have repeatedly linked to Sun Microsystem’s blogging policy here but unfortunately CBC senior executives who wrote the guideline didn’t notice them. So for the record, I am copying the whole thing here for CBC senior executives to think about and may be even learn from.
For the senior CBC executives that don’t have time to read, here is a four word executive summary of Sun’s blogging plicy, “without asking permission first”.
Cheers,
Kempton
==============
For the CBC executives that want to read more, here is Sun’s full blogging policy copied here for the record. I hope Mike (Sun’s GC) and the nice people at Sun will forgive me. If I may say it again, Sun’s CEO and General Consul both keep and write a blog. See my blogroll for links to their respective blogs.
======= Sun’s blogging policy copied here for reference =======
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 (but please do read and follow the advice in this note). Blogging is a good way to do this.
Advice By speaking directly to the world, without benefit of management approval, we are accepting higher risks in the interest of higher rewards. We don’t want to micro-manage, but here is some advice.
It’s a Two-Way Street The real goal isn’t to get everyone at Sun blogging, it’s to become part of the industry conversation. So, whether or not you’re going to write, and especially if you are, look around and do some reading, so you learn where the conversation is and what people are saying.
If you start writing, remember the Web is all about links; when you see something interesting and relevant, link to it; you’ll be doing your readers a service, and you’ll also generate links back to you; a win-win.
Don’t Tell Secrets Common sense at work here; it’s perfectly OK to talk about your work and have a dialog with the community, but it’s not OK to publish the recipe for one of our secret sauces. There’s an official policy on protecting Sun’s proprietary and confidential information, but there are still going to be judgment calls.
If the judgment call is tough-on secrets or one of the other issues discussed here-it’s never a bad idea to get management sign-off before you publish.
Be Interesting Writing is hard work. There’s no point doing it if people don’t read it. Fortunately, if you’re writing about a product that a lot of people are using, or are waiting for, and you know what you’re talking about, you’re probably going to be interesting. And because of the magic of hyperlinking and the Web, if you’re interesting, you’re going to be popular, at least among the people who understand your specialty.
Another way to be interesting is to expose your personality; almost all of the successful bloggers write about themselves, about families or movies or books or games; or they post pictures. People like to know what kind of a person is writing what they’re reading. Once again, balance is called for; a blog is a public place and you should try to avoid embarrassing your readers or the company.
Write What You Know The best way to be interesting, stay out of trouble, and have fun is to write about what you know. If you have a deep understanding of some chunk of Solaris or a hot JSR, it’s hard to get into too much trouble, or be boring, talking about the issues and challenges around that.
On the other hand, a Solaris architect who publishes rants on marketing strategy, or whether Java should be open-sourced, has a good chance of being embarrassed by a real expert, or of being boring.
Financial Rules There are all sorts of laws about what we can and can’t say, business-wise. Talking about revenue, future product ship dates, roadmaps, or our share price is apt to get you, or the company, or both, into legal trouble.
Quality Matters Use a spell-checker. If you’re not design-oriented, ask someone who is whether your blog looks decent, and take their advice on how to improve it.
You don’t have to be a great or even a good writer to succeed at this, but you do have to make an effort to be clear, complete, and concise. Of course, “complete” and “concise” are to some degree in conflict; that’s just the way life is. There are very few first drafts that can’t be shortened, and usually improved in the process.
Think About Consequences The worst thing that can happen is that a Sun sales pro is in a meeting with a hot prospect, and someone on the customer’s side pulls out a print-out of your blog and says “This person at Sun says that product sucks.”
In general, “XXX sucks” is not only risky but unsubtle. Saying “Netbeans needs to have an easier learning curve for the first-time user” is fine; saying “Visual Development Environments for Java sucks” is just amateurish.
Once again, it’s all about judgment: using your weblog to trash or embarrass the company, our customers, or your co-workers, is not only dangerous but stupid.
Disclaimers Many bloggers put a disclaimer on their front page saying who they work for, but that they’re not speaking officially. This is good practice, but don’t count on it to avoid trouble; it may not have much legal effect.
Tools We’re starting to develop tools to make it easy for anyone to start publishing, but if you feel the urge, don’t wait for us; there are lots of decent blogging tools and hosts out there.
======= End of quote from Sun’s blogging policy =======
By the way, I forgot to mention that, IMHO, the following words are ill-defined and left too much room for wishy-washy interpretations by CBC,
“clearly associates” - Is it advertising on the banner that “I work for CBC” or mentioning of I work for CBC in four posts? But you see, if those posts are read by thousands, does it make a difference?
“advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion” - “a cause” is so broad,
“controversial subjects” - I am pretty sure every interesting subjects under the sun can be controversial to someone. Who define what is controversial? What are the criteria? This is asking for trouble.
“or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute” - This is so broad that that any complains can use this to shutdown a blog. Is this wise?
- K
Twenty-five years ago, when I took a business course at a university, the prof was a retired executive from Simpsons. He told us that in the early 1950s when he started on the shop floor, employees had to get permission from their supervisors to get married. And from what I have read the big Canadian banks also once had that policy. The Simpon’s policy, according to what he told us, was only abandoned in the late 1960s. Imagine that, going to your supervisor, cap in hand, “Please, sir, I want to get married.” OK but only if the supervisor approves the guy or girl.
Luckily in Canada we have the Charter of Rights which does apply in most circumstances to the private sector, where in the United States its Bill of Rights has only very limited jurisdiction in the private sector and corporations can still tell their employees how to live.
As for Dave and Allan Sorenson I doubt if they have ever even read a blog by a CBC employee, other than Tod’s. I don’t think conservative CBCphobes would even bother. They seem to think there is a vast left wing conspiracy out there and bloggers are all trashing Conservatives at taxpayers expense.
That is the hypocrisy of the “Libertarian” right. They want liberty for people who think just like they do, but not for anyone else.
Actually most of these blogs are there to talk about life, talk about canoe trips, building model trains, holidays in far off places. Other bloggers use their sites to promote their other work, music, art, photography, writing–which is an absolute necessity these days when the corporate world will only promote the Stephen Kings and Paul McCartneys, who don’t need promotion anyway.
Yes I get my salary from the Canadian taxpayer, but so do the RCMP, the Canadian Forces, biologists who work for Environment Canada and air traffic controllers. A lot of CF members blog (and are rightly subject to operational security regulations). But that argument that just because someone’s salary is paid by the taxpayer means that we cannot have our own opinions about anything is appalling, especially since it appears that the censors on this blog are self appointed.
If an RCMP staff sergeant somewhere wants to blog about a hunting trip (a controversial subject for some people) or someone in the passport office wants to talk about painting water colours, no one has the right to tell them what to do. I once knew an air traffic controller who was a director in community theatre. It was a joke that he directed his plays like he directed aircraft. Now I don’t know if this guy blogs, but if he wanted to blog about how he used his experience in air traffic control to direct community theatre…..no one has the right to tell hlm not to do it.
As for Dave’s comments on NDA agreements and similar employee agreements, they don’t stand up in court unless there is clear evidence of proprietary information or trade secrets being disclosed. Software and other companies try to make employees sign “we own everything” agreements which means the company owns every idea you have while you are employed, even if you got the idea in the shower in your own home. A few years ago in the US, a software and gaming company demanded the rights to an employee’s science fiction novel, even though the novel had no connection whatsoever with the company products. In the end the case was dismissed.
It is simply that corporations these days, public or private, still believe they have the right control their employee’s lives.
Oh no! I better lock my doors. I’ve mentioned on my blog multiple times that I’m a former employee, and I do media analysis on my blog, so I’m sure I’ve “brought the Corporation into disrepute”. What to do, what to do?
“I watched Fox News and was taken aback at the diversity of opinion.”
Fox News only trots out lesser “liberal” pundits so their loud-mouthed talk show hosts can yell at them for a little while. In fact owner Rupert Murdock is on record stating that he “tried” to support Bush’s Middle East policy. When did it become acceptable for a news agency to actively support Presidential policy?
You may also be interested to know that studies have found that Fox viewers are generally the most misinformed viewers of any news service in the United States.
Generally speaking, conservatives these days consider any reporting biased that doesn’t support their views, regardless of what the facts may be.
The key here is that the blog author has to identify themselves as an employee of CBC for these guidelines to apply. I don’t know about you, but I’m not someone who WANTS to be associated with the company that I work for.
If I’m some rah-rah fascionalistic go-getter (i.e. I work in sales, marketing, or in the upper ranks), then sure, I’m going to identify myself as an employee. And plug the company like I’ll be dead tomorrow if I don’t.
But if I’m not one of these, then I fail to see what loyalty I owe to the company, especially since they owe no loyalty to me. In other words, I don’t even know why anyone in that class would be so proud of their employment that they would identify themselves as an employee.
My own company has similar rules. I never, ever state who I work for anywhere online. Why would I?
I’m a casual. Are they going to try to make me follow this?
This is a complete abuse of power and goes against any concept of a democratic society. Screw them.
I request that the following be posted at the insidecbc.ca blog:
I consider the CBC to be liable for what has gone on here in relation to demeaning me in the eyes of the public by allowing the publication of Justin’s remark above.
It further contradicts the stated guidelines of this blog, and was clearly and intentionally allowed to be published by Tod, a employee of the CBC, under the banner “Official Blog of The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation”.
This enterprise is partially funded by taxpayers and the government, now being used to libel me.
Oh come on Allan. I just read the whole thread. There’s no libel there. Besides if there ^IS^ why dont you just file a lawsuit instead of whining?
How can a CBC viewer call ANY other news service biased, politically motivated, and self-serving, and keep a straight face!? Billy O, spare us your bias.
gayscribe’s remark that:
“As for Dave and Allan Sorenson I doubt if they have ever even read a blog by a CBC employee, other than Tod’s.”
is, what could be kindly termed, an insufficiently informed opinion.
I have been a fervent advocate of full and responsible free expression, and fun, for quite some time now.
Most of my work appears at The Tea Makers blog.
I was also the author of an alternative to the CBC Blogging Manifesto, titled CBC Blogging Manifestoo.
Hrmm, the thing is Sun is a technology company and CBC is a broadcast channel. If possible it’d be much better if there were a copy of the New York Times blogging policy or another broadcast channel’s blogging policy available.
I agree that there should be a policy, I have no idea what’s reasonable and whether or not the type of industry matters.
The difference between blogging and talking to people in person, be it at home, at their home, social gatherings, public places, etc… is that the CBC has to accept that it is happening. Denying employees the opportunity to blog their views and opinions while acknowledging that they are that — their views and opinions — retreats the CBC’s management style back several generations to some archaic form of top-down approach.
The CBC should accept that it is the personal-style of communications that gives it the humanized personality that audiences are looking to connect with these days. I would argue that the CBC becomes far more credible by having established itself in the web 2.0 space with an open approach to communications.
I hope that the CBC doesn’t undo all of its good work on the web by pulling back to 1900’s communications ethics.
This is very heavy-handed. No such ‘guidance’ is required. For the CBC to do this is very surprising. This is something I might expect from a large, privately held corporation with many political interests and an image to uphold, but, the CBC? I thought it was (in theory) independent, honest, and open! Apparently only with the big wigs stamp of approval. As a Canadian who believes in free speech, and a Canadian tax payer, I’m very offended by this.
As of Sunday August 5, 2007, the CBC Facebook network has 2,465 members.
You have to be a CBC employee with a cbc e-mail address to join. According to a note from CBC communications posted on Teamakers there are 10,682 employees.
Now if all or most of the 8,217 remaining (possibly excluding the 846 managers mentioned on Teamakers) joined Facebook in the next couple of days, that would let them know we all stand for freedom of expression.
Sorry Allen, as cute as the idea might be that there was any slander involved, my comment was directed at RU Nuts - who I assumed based on tone might be you, but in reality you can’t slander an anonymous person. In any event “maybe you should take up reading?” would not be considered libel by any reasonable judge anywhere, actually RU Nuts comes closer to libel than anything I said as does “When did you first begin to think that your ideas would be taken seriously? Or was that, as far as I can tell, never a consideration?”
Good try though
I used to have a personal blog and I self-censored and decided to stop. It was making me uncomfortable to have my opinions and occasionally impuslive thoughts cached on the internet for all time. It makes sense — people can use something you wrote years ago to impugn your journalistic credibility years down the road. CBC journalists should have opinions about things that matter. But I think broadcasting them to the world is not always in your best interest as a journalist. I’m not sure about the constitutionality of this CBC guideline, but I think beyond a kneejerk “That’s so unfair” reaction the guideline actually makes sense.
Since nobody, including Tod, has seen fit to post the entire “guideline,” as is perfectly permissible under fair dealing for review and criticism, here goes:
Personal Blogging – Guidelines for CB/Radio-Canada Employees
As the internet becomes an even more important part of people’s lives, the popularity of blogging will increase. Blogging is becoming a form of public conversation on the internet in which CBC employees may wish to take part.
These guidelines apply to any personal blogging or other self-publishing such as podcasting by CBC/Radio-Canada employees if the content clearly associates them with CBC/Radio-Canada. They apply not only to CBC/Radio-Canada journalists but to any corporation employee.
When bloggers clearly identify themselves as CBC/Radio-Canada employees, they are expected to behave in a way that is consistent with our journalistic philosophy, editorial values and corporate policies.
Such blogging should be done on an employee’s own time, posted through a personal e-mail address and not channeled through CBC/Radio-Canada’s e-mail system.
These blogs are expected to adhere to the principles outlined in CBC/Radio-Canada Human Resources policies regarding Outside Work, Advocacy and Opinion, Conflict of Interest and the Code of Conduct.
To start and maintain a blog of this kind, you need your supervisor’s approval.
The blog cannot advocate for a group or a cause, or express partisan political opinion. It should also avoid controversial subjects or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.
CBC/Radio-Canada material such as pre-interviews, interviews, research, etc. created or developed while doing your job is the property of CBC/Radio-Canada and can only be used with your supervisor’s permission.
Program blogs or other “official” CBC publications are not addressed here and can only be designed and launched with the approval of the appropriate supervisor. 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.
If you are uncertain about any of this, please have a conversation with your supervisor to clear it up.
Yes, I agree, it should be that free speech occur within CBC’s guidelines. Journalist, simply quote anonymous sources to continue to say whatever you want to be said. That way, rather than some nasty remark you want to utter coming from you, it can be that good ole’ Mr./Ms. Anonymity.
Just use Mr. or Ms. “A” for short. We’ll know what you mean.
“[A personal blog] should also avoid controversial subjects or contain material that could bring CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.”
So, for instance, if it was CBC’s practice to, oh, I don’t know, not show certain images from the Virginia Tech shootings, or the Saddam Hussein hanging in its entirety, we could should probably not just link to that kind of thing on our journalism blog that identifies us as, say, the Editorial Director of cbc.ca?
I’m just trying to get a handle on the rules here.
Excuse me, but the CBC is a media organization owned by __Canadian taxpayers__. We have a right to know what’s going on in that organization of yours.
I am protesting this letter from the CBC to its employees, to my MP and the Minister of Heritage.
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.
“As smart as some of the commenters above believe their views to be, they will be embarrassed by their myopic and childish opinions in the days ahead.”
Allan, there’s nothing “childish” about not letting your boss control your brain and life outside of work. You talk about responsibility, then openly support the CBC taking away our responsibility to behave in a decent manner on a blog we may own. I don’t need a nanny.
Next up - the CBC plans to herd cats.
Can anyone decode the English-like strings in the comment by Kris above? I can’t.
How can a boss control your brain?
There’s only one way I can think of, and that’s by telling lies.
I support anything that will help the CBC fashion a giant boot that will squish as many of their workers as possible in one swoop and watch the blood squirt out of them.
The CBC has never stopped anyone from blogging. Ever.
But they would like to, finally, act responsibly and take steps to prevent anyone from exploiting their employment with the CBC to further a personal agenda.
That’s for guests with books to sell.
And they need to ensure that the budget that goes to pay for those downtrodden drones who toil at the TBC is not vulnerable to lawsuits that would cause your own job to be eliminated because of the actions of one worker.
Nor do I want to see anyone using the good name of the CBC to unlawfully endorse a product or cause.
I’d like to think that Scientologists haven’t taken over the CBC yet, for example.
Just people who wear sandals.
How can a boss control your brain? By saying, “No,” when you go to him, cap in hand, and say, “Please sir, may I have a blog that mentions where I work?”
Of course, they might not say no, but then again, they might. It’s now within their right, with or without just cause. There are no ramifications for either way, nor guidelines as to what they should be worried about. As you’ll see on Teamakers, NPR has a similar policy, but it stipulates that approval “will not be unreasonably denied.” Most CBC agreements (e.g. time off) have that same language. This policy does not.
Allan goes on at length about how he expects CBC’ers to “exploit their employment”, perhaps because of his beef with Tod. But I suspect he’s never worked as a journalist. These days most writers, columnists, authors and creative types have blogs or websites or Facebook accounts listing their credentials.
Maybe they are looking for sources for work, or they want to generate interest in the work process, or they just want to be taken seriously. Maybe they want to mention something that happened between the hours of 9 and 5, without excising their text to make it look like they work for CSIS or have a drug problem. Maybe they selfishly want to solicit speaking gigs, or headhunters. Who cares? It’s on their own time, their own dime. As long as it is clearly marked “Not Made by CBC”, let them have their lives. And their brains.
As for the concern about liability, I suspect having a supervisor give his or her stamp of approval opens up more liability, not less.
Joe, Thanks for posting the entire “guideline” for review and criticism. (I love “fair dealing”.) - K
=========
After reading the guideline in full, my previous critiques remain the same.
To me, the tone of the guideline simply sends the wrong vibe to CBC employees — There seems to be no ends of potential problems to create a personal blog. In deep contrast, the difference in tone of Sun Microsystems’ blogging policy I quoted above and CBC’s is just night and day.
In my humble opinion, Sun treats its employees as assets capable of contributing to the community with their knowledge. Quoting Sun’s policy (emphasis mine), “By speaking directly to the world, without benefit of management approval, we are ***accepting higher risks in the interest of higher rewards***. We don’t want to micro-manage …” If I may be blunt, Sun treats its employees as adults.
Lawyers are there sometimes to protect us from risks. At the same time, it will be tragic CBC is run by fear. It will be sad to see if the benefits of CBC employees blogging and sharing their insights to the world be crushed by this ill-conceived “guideline”.
I hope the CBC executives will have the wisdom to reverse and reset the tone of the “guideline”. If not, I hope the damage done will not take years to be undone. Once you burn a group of employees, it is not a simple “oops, I made a mistake”. The culture and feeling of free to contribute takes time and efforts to cultivate.
Just my 2 cents.