The right to blog
Law Dork posted today about an article that appeared in the Thursday edition of The Columbus Dispatch editorial about blogging. It was entitled "Bloggers Beware" and commented on the issues surrounding blogging and the workplace. Basically, it was a warning that if you blog, you could be putting your employment in jeopardy.
I agree with everything that Chris said in his post. It did seem that the editorial was an attempt to scare people away from creating ones own blog and publishing their writing. The idea that a media outlet would be against the free flowing of thoughts, ideas and news seems ridiculous. Unless of course that flow of information is someone else's and it might cost you lost revenue. And when I think about it, I do not consume as much information from local news sources anymore. Most of the news I get is from national news sources online. And instead of looking at the opinions in my local paper I read blogs. And this probably sounds bad, but I don't feel like reading the small-minded BS that I do in the local papers sometimes. I read certain blogs by people who are insightful, funny, and/or have a point to make. I don't want to read about how the lady down the street thinks that the end of the world is near because gay people got married. And I don't want to read the spin that the local news puts on national issues sometimes. I'll get the news from several sources and make up my own mind about it.
So to answer Chris's question about why the newspaper wants us to stop blogging: It costs them money and some amount of power or control. (Doesn't everything come down to money and power?) When bloggers go nuts about a piece of news, it can become the news. The media loses control over what they think the news should be. And when bloggers have the free ability to publish their own thoughts without the editor seeing the comments first, the paper loses control of what is said about the news. I don't think that the news-media is necessarily on some power hungry war, but I think that blogging changes the power balance between the media and the people, and that's uncomfortable for them.
And something else I want to comment on is the part of the article that references the fact that courts in America often defer peoples' First Amendment rights to their employers' wants. If indeed courts side with corporations over individual freedom of expression, I think that seems to fly in the face of what a free society is about. "Workers serve at the pleasure of those who issue their paychecks." This statement and it's placement in the editorial seem to indicate that people are bought off by their employer to believe and promote whatever the employer wants. Granted if you are working public relations for an abstinence clinic you wouldn't want to blog about your anonymous sexual exploits, but if you are a cashier at a gas station and you write about human rights you shouldn't be silenced by your employer. If someone at my workplace should decide to blog about how they are against feminism and women's rights, I may not agree and neither may my employer, but it is not anyone's place to tell that person to stop flapping their mouth.
Certainly we all have our opinions, and it's our right to express them. Whether the media or your employer likes it should be of no consequence.
Well said! It is a fallacy to think that employers have some inherent right to censor their employee's thoughts and expression.
I'll agree that this is a money issue for newspapers. They're losing revenues left and right to the online world. I forsee a day when the "majors" are cut down to a few pages of news and information. The web moves at lightning fast speed. What one blogger uncovers can be all over the world within minutes.
WE - WE have become the new journalists. We have taken the power from the "newsmakers" and the kings of the editorial board. The Internet has established true freedom of the press - something we've rarely if ever seen in the world before. That really frightens the major media outlets who depend on their power for political and financial clout. The times of Citizen Kane being able to make or break people is gone - and they hate it.
More importantly, the newspapers are big time media giants. They do not believe in individual freedom and they certainly do not believe in the First Amendment rights of individuals. They believe that only applies to them. Thus, they would be most happy to see bloggers suffer for two reasons: Bottom Line and Shoring up their right to punish employees who might differ with the editorial policies or more accurately political directives of the paper which are often handed down by the national political parties.
Let's face it... newspapers suck. I'm with you. I rarely pick up a print paper anymore. I read articles from around the world on the Internet - often finding the most unbiased reporting outside our borders. For commentary and fast breaking information I turn to the Blogosphere where opinions vary wildly and where the people are so much more interesting than the ones you see printed in the paper!