7 comments

• 

  Amy Gahran

  1 year ago

  Mathew -- Just wondering, does the Globe & Mail have a specific policy about blogging?
  
  I posted about the Pazienzia flap this morning on Poynter's E-Media Tidbits: http://snurl.com/201ql
  
  There I asked journos to say what their employers' policies are about blogging -- and to post the policy language, if possible.
  
  Also there I noted: "It seems to me that as the media landscape shifts toward becoming more open, conversational, and personal, it's unreasonable and even counterproductive to ask or expect journalists (or anyone, really) not to participate. These days, if you're "in the media," failure to engage and participate in a transparent way online can seriously undermine your credibility -- or at least your perceived relevance."
  
  I hope the G&M realizes how innately stupid it would be to fire you or anyone just for blogging. If anything, your blog makes you even *more* valuable to them.
  
  - Amy Gahran
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Thanks, Amy -- I hope the Globe realizes that too :-)
  
  As for us having a blogging policy, I know that we do but I can't seem
  to find it on our intranet anywhere. I'm pretty sure it has the
  standard language about getting approval from your manager, making
  sure you stick to the Globe's ethical guidelines, etc. etc. Probably
  a lot like what CNN has.
  
  
  On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Disqus
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  1 year ago

  when I wrote about this the other day I referred to Chez as one of my new heroes ( http://www.winextra.com/2008/02/18/even-cranky-... ) just as I have on occaision mentioned the respect I have for any bloggers; such as yourself, who successfully manage to walk that very fine line.
  
  The Globe should be given kudo as well I imagine for being as imbracing of the new media as they are - even though I still think there is still away to go but hen you aould have a better view point on that.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Thanks, Steven. I saw your post and meant to link to it. In fact,
  your post is one of the things that got me thinking about it.
  
  
  On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Disqus
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  1 year ago

  Glad to be of assistance :)
  reply
• 

  Danny Sanchez

  1 year ago

  I don' t know that I'd so quickly rush to Pazienza's defense. While I do believe journalists should be allowed to blog responsibly, Pazienza seemed to drift into politics (“I wake up every morning baffled as to why America hasn’t thrown George Bush and Dick Cheney in prison...") and other matters that could damage the objectivity --such as it is-- of CNN, whether or not he officially identified himself as working for CNN. And, if his work was being picked up by other large news/opinion sites, then I can see how that too might irk the brass over there.
  
  That said, perhaps a firing wasn't in order. If he was such a popular blogger, perhaps they might've found a way to capitalize on that and reap the benefits for CNN.com.
  
  In your case Matthew, your blog pretty much sticks to technology issues, and I believe it enhances your stature as a tecnology writer, which in turn benefits the Globe and Mail. Your blog and Pazienza's appear to be on very different ground.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Thanks for the comment, Danny. I would agree that Pazienza strayed
  into some pretty controversial topics -- I just think maybe a
  discussion with him about appropriate boundaries or whatever might
  have been a better way to go, rather than firing him.
  
  
  On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Disqus
  reply