Thought I'd share this article from Editor and Publisher.
Let's assume that for blogs written by full-time staffers or other specifically designated "regular" contributors to a newspaper's Web site, there's little doubt that the legally prudent, and probably most editorially effective, approach is to "pre-edit." But what about blogs that full-time staff members write from home on their own time and that aren't related to their areas of expertise at the newspaper? Those would seem to be OK, wouldn't they?It really makes you think about how opinionated you want to be on a topic.
Not so fast, says Chad Milton, citing the hypothetical case of a star reporter who from home maintains a blog about wines. "People know who he is," observes Milton, "and they pay particular attention to him because he is a star reporter. If he says something defamatory in his wine blog, I would think the plaintiff might well want to sue the publisher of his newspaper, arguing, 'This is your guy, so you're responsible for it.' Whether that would stick, I don't know. But there certainly is the potential for a case there."
Determining the nature of personal blogs written by reporters and editors outside the parameters of their official newspaper duties is a delicate issue indeed.
1 comment:
DOH.
I realized I posted this entry twice and I think I deleted the wrong one. So here's the comment W left on the other post:
You know, because you don't express your opinions you give your audience more respect by letting them form their own opinions. And even though you are a liberal reporter, that's great because you don't enundate the correct right wing conservatives (I'm just kidding about the partisanship). You the man, Jonathan!
And to that I say thank you.
I think it takes a lot more to present both sides of a story than to cram your side down someones throat.
Post a Comment