stoweboyd and the /messengers

The Washington Post's senior editor Milton Coleman has published 'guidelines' to the paper's staff stating that they cannot -- for all intents and purposes -- have an independent public life via the Internet. Sadly, the thinking behind this memo is not limited in some way to the executive offices of the Washington Post, or even the management of old school media. This premise is general in today's world of business: if you have a job, you cannot say anything in any social context -- not even the most private -- that advocates a viewpoint about politics, society, or the world that could be interpreted as casting a shadow on your employer. If such an opinion or conviction is brought to the attention of your employer, you can be summarily terminated.

Here's the memo for the Washington post, that led to Raju Narisetti shutting down his Twitter account after he posted some of his opinions there. My comments are in square brackets.

[via paidContent]

The following are effective immediately:

Newsroom Guidelines for Use of Facebook, Twitter and Other Online Social Networks

Social networks are communications media, and a part of our everyday lives. They can be valuable tools in gathering and disseminating news and information. They also create some potential hazards we need to recognize. When using social networking tools for reporting or for our personal lives, we must remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists.

[There is no separation between your professional and personal life. Your constitutional rights to freedom of speech only means that the Government can't abridge them, not us, so shut up.]

The following guidelines apply to all Post journalists, without limitation to the subject matter of their assignments.

Using Social Networking Tools for Reporting

When using social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, My Space or Twitter for reporting, we must protect our professional integrity. Washington Post journalists should identify themselves as such. We must be accurate in our reporting and transparent about our intentions when participating. We must be concise yet clear when describing who we are and what information we seek.

[After all, the only reason for using a social tool is to seek information to write stories. You would never want to engage in a conversation about what is important, or how people should live their lives, for example.]

When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.

[Forget the fact that impartiality is a myth, one that has been proven by cognitive psychologists. The nature of our minds means that we need to have beliefs to think rationally and to make decisions. Bias is built into the structure of language, for example. But our cult of journalism is built on the myth of impartiality, so shut up.]

Our online data trails reflect on our professional reputations and those of The Washington Post. Be sure that your pattern of use does not suggest, for example, that you are interested only in people with one particular view of a topic or issue.

[So, by all means talk with the crazies denying climate change, and make them seem to have equal weight in the argument with scientists on the topic, thereby slowing the world's response. After all, all stories have two sides, even if we have to find some fraud to hold up the other end of the story!]

Using Social Networking Tools for Personal Reasons

All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens. Post journalists must recognize that any content associated with them in an online social network is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of what appears beneath their bylines in the newspaper or on our website.

[Again: you aren't an individual. You are a cog in a machine whose policies and positions you cannot influence or change. You have no rights to free speech so long as you want to work here. Shut up.]

What you do on social networks should be presumed to be publicly available to anyone, even if you have created a private account. It is possible to use privacy controls online to limit access to sensitive information. But such controls are only a deterrent, not an absolute insulator. Reality is simple: If you don’t want something to be found online, don’t put it there.

[There is no such thing as private discourse. We are listening to everything, and anything we discover, even if it was written or spoken in a so-called private context is considered public speech. An online chat with your wife or your best friend is as public as anything you publish in the WaPo. Shut up.]

Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything—including photographs or video—that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility. This same caution should be used when joining, following or friending any person or organization online.

[As MG Siegler noted, you can't even follow someone who might have questionable opinions: "The whole thing is ridiculous, but my favorite bit is the last part. You can’t even friend or follow people known to be affiliated with some movement or cause, or presumably is even just a biased person."]

Post journalists should not be involved in any social networks related to advocacy or a special interest regarding topics they cover, unless specifically permitted by a supervising editor for reporting and so long as other standards of transparency are maintained while doing any such reporting.

[Note that this does not include all the polite and acceptable biases, like being in favor of inner city school children studying hard, rooting for the local baseball team, or participating in a fund raiser for your church or synagogue. All the bourgeois biases are fine. But don't wonder openly about the Palestinian conflict, global warming, or the insolvency of California: those are off limits. Shut up.]

Post journalists should not accept or place tokens, badges or virtual gifts from political or partisan causes on pages or sites, and should monitor information posted on your own personal profile sites by those with whom you are associated online for appropriateness.

[You are a tool of this organization, and are allowed no meaningful political or partisan affiliations. Don't you dare come out in favor of healthy food for school children, or gripe about the state of the roads! You are allowed to vote (at least at this time, although we are considering that issue, too), but you cannot state who or what you have voted for. Shut up.]

Personal pages online are no place for the discussion of internal newsroom issues such as sourcing, reporting of stories, decisions to publish or not to publish, personnel matters and untoward personal or professional matters involving our colleagues. The same is true for opinions or information regarding any business activities of The Washington Post Company. Such pages and sites also should not be used to criticize competitors or those who take issue with our journalism or our journalists.

[Under no circumstances can you discuss work publicly, on any level, except when it is whimsical or makes us look good, like congratulating a colleague for winning a Pulitzer. The real concerns we all have about the future of journalism, company policies, or the gag orders all journalists have to suffer cannot be discussed except by your betters: the editors and publisher. Shut up.]

If you have questions about any of these matters, please check with your supervisor or a senior editor.

[But don't publish them anywhere. Shut up.]

NOTE: These guidelines apply to individual accounts on online social networks, when used for reporting and for personal use. Separate guidelines will follow regarding other aspects of Post journalism online.

[Shut up.]

As I said, this police state thinking is not new, and is not limited to newsrooms. It is a widely held belief in the US, at least, that if you have a job you can be terminated by expressing any opinions that run counter to the prejudices or pride of the corporate board room or even just your immediate boss. There are laws in several states that limit this, but basically, you're screwed.

Your interest in free love or back-to-the-earth lifestyles? Shut up. Promoting safe and non-controversial bromides, like Little League and Boy Scouts, no problem. But don't you dare suggest that The Black Panthers' lunch programs for inner city poor children is a social good and that government is failing its homeless and poor citizens: you'll lose your job in a heartbeat.

Even the left-leaning and generally laid-back tech scene is not free of Orwellian controls. A few years back Niall Kennedy posted a satiric piece on his personal blog, and after some grumblings by some unknown people, he decided to take it down. His employer, Technorati, never seemed to twist his arm, although Dave Sifry, the CEO at that time, was very obviously involved in Kennedy thinking it through. And one year later, almost to the day, Kennedy departed the company.

As I said at the time:

This is the confluence of a number of really bad trends:

• The current pendulum swing towards suppression of any sort of strong language, intense imagery, or controversial juxtaposition of ideas which has bubbled out of the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" and the FCC crackdown on dirty words -- it's a sort of social McCarthyism, where the worst of our puritanical impulses are being given full sway, to the point that TV stations are afraid to air "Saving Private Ryan" because the FCC wouldn't say whether it is acceptable to do so or not. Who says that people can't express dangerous ideas, hold contrarian views, or raise unpopular issues? This is why we will see another swirling controversy around the Blown-Up Soccer Players commercial produced by the UN is going to lead to heads rolling and all sorts of handwringing.
  
• There is a growing climate of corporate conformity, so if you hold a job you are expected -- no matter what Dave Sifry states -- to operate within the white lines that the company perceives to be painted on the roadway. Note that Sifry mentioned that "we [Technorati] asked him to remove the pictures that violated trademark, in order that we [Technorati] not be sued" -- he didn't say that Technorati had been sued, or that someone potentially suing Technorati for actions taken by a off-duty employee had any grounds to do so. He just asked Niall to remove the pictures to benefit Technorati. As was pointed out at SFist, "the use of corporate logos in the context is clearly an example of parody speech protected by the First Amendment," so if Technorati were sued there is a solid basis for the company to defend itself based on individual free speech protections. But, clearly, it's just easier to ask the employee to take down the pictures.
  
• Whether or not Niall says so, he may have feared for his job if he were to attempt to face down the social pressures leading him to self-censor. California (where Technorati is based), New York, Colorado, Montana and North Dakota has laws that specifically protect employees from being fired for outside activities, according to a recent story in CNet. Of course, most people are blissfully unaware of these laws, and they do not specifically mention blogging. But the litany of people getting "dooced" -- fired for writing unacceptable or confidential material in their blogs -- is getting longer all the time.

What does it mean? Even inside-the-blogosphere companies like Technorati don't live in a vacuum: they are part of the real world, and they are subject to the same pressures that PBS, Boeing, and Delta Airlines are.

But we shouldn't accept the premises that Niall has acquiesced to. Individuals are individuals: they are not cogs in a corporate machine. There is a thing called free expression, and a life outside of work. We should protect the freedom that allows us to state our personal views -- however unpopular -- and not fear for our job because our employer doesn't agree or is unwilling to stand up for that freedom.

But the hard cold reality, five years later, is that the clamps on personal expression continue, and we are forced to self-censor and conceal what we believe, if we want to get a paycheck.