
I've often wondered what would happen if I blogged favorably about an issue that was contrary to the beliefs of the organisation I work for. Or if I was honest about an issue that the company would rather not discuss - certainly not in the public domain.
When I blogged about my fears for a Tony Abbott-led Liberal party last week, I received a phone call from my mother-in-law and a public chastising from Fairfax columnist Miranda Devine, but not a word from the CEO of Independent Digital Media where I'm employed as Publisher. Nor was I the recipient of even a peep from the Chair of the Netball Australia Board, of which I am a Director.
No doubt the situation would be reversed if I were to break rank and criticise an advertiser or an umpire. And that would be fair as it could impact the respective organisation commercially. That's not to say that I can't disagree behind closed doors. That's my role. I can and I have been known to. Its the public airing of disunity that is the issue here.
I've had cause to question a staff member's comments made via the very public Twitter in recent times. Workshopping a business concern in 140 characters or less with a band of anonymous followers wasn't exactly in the best interests of the company at the time, at any time.
It's undoubtedly why Telstra felt it necessary to table a social media policy in April this year. It outlines the rules of engagement for when Telstra staff have their Telstra hats on while blogging and tweeting. It makes perfect practical and commercial sense but is a reminder that in the 21st century our preferred form of communication is a double-edged sword.
Call it the 'always on' strategy. When you're working for Telstra there is an expectation that 24/7 you will abide by the social media rules. No such thing as 'in your own time'.
But what to make of an organisation's decision to ban a blog by a local journalist for criticising something as seemingly irrelevant as a Christmas gift? UK company, Liverpool Direct Limited recently banned the Liverpool Daily Post blog from staff access due to its criticism of the company's Christmas gift to staff.

"It seems that the latest attempt to tell staf (sic) working at the city council's controversial IT joint venture with BT how great their workplace is, has backfired," David Bartlett blogged.
"As you can see by the picture, I have been supplied with the gizmos that were handed out to staff in an attempt to boost morale at Liverpool Direct Limited (LDL)."
Bartlett writes in the follow-up blog post-ban: "If you are reading this blog you are clearly not working at Liverpool Direct Limited (LDL)".
As a journalist it's easy to beat the drum in favour of freedom of expression; the right to be independent. We do and we should continue to do so. But there's also the not-so-insignificant matter of freedom of information. No organisation should be able to restrict or control the news that reaches its staff. Surely we've evolved beyond that. But living in a world where social media means that anyone, anywhere can join the conversation is instead potentially limiting our freedom of expression, ironically - and it appears that information restrictions have dropped their bags at our liberated doorstep too.
According to a report by Kristine Lowe, president of The Norwegian Online News Association (NONA), on journalism.co.uk, NONA met last month to debate the need for rules for journalists' use of social media. News organisations across the globe are beginning to put rules in place mostly to protect the media organisation, but also at the request from journalists who are uncomfortable with the grey areas.
Jan Omdahl, internet and technology commentator for Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet, pointed out that journalists encounter a whole new set of challenges online. “Even if I as a social media user think we can just continue as we always have done, I do see that we can benefit from raising awareness about these challenges. For instance: should I reply when I get questions on Twitter about why Dagbladet has used five different angles on that sex podcast on NRK.no? Should I confer with my bosses before I reply? Is it appropriate that I share my opinions on one of our most heavily criticised front pages?”
John Einar Sandvand, a digital strategist with Aftenposten, Norway’s newspaper of record, suggested three rules for how journalists should use social media:
1) The media company should be genuinely positive to its staff being active in social media
2) Social media activities must be done in a way which maintains the professional integrity of journalists
3) Stay loyal to your employer.
Illustration credit
Image credit














