TDavid has some excellent advice for April Fool’s Day — don’t take things too seriously over the weekend.
I think I may just leave the computer off and enjoy the nice spring weather. And if it rains, I’ll take my kid to see the new Ice Age movie that he’s only told me about four times this morning alone.
Enjoy your weekend. See you Monday.
Tags: April Fool’s Day
Powered by Qumana
This week, the blogosphere has been a-buzz with two brouhahas that raise an interesting question about how we define a public figure.
In the PR corner, we had l’affaire smurfette, a gossip blog which targeted Steve Rubel and Edelman PR in its initial attacks. In the tech corner, we saw a series of increasingly personal attacks on well-known Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble following the Windows Vista "announcement."
I’m not going to rehash the details of either of these issues. I’ve said what I had to say about the PR gossip blog. And I didn’t read all the Scoble stuff — there was just so much, and a lot of it just junk. Suffice it to say that criticism is one thing, personal attacks are another. Some of the comments I saw on Scoble’s blog were completely beyond the pale — they weren’t criticism, they were out and out attacks. What is the point of commenting in someone’s blog that you aren’t going to read it anymore? If you don’t like the neighborhood, don’t go. Just stop reading. If you want some more background, check out these posts from Naked Conversations and Neville Hobson.
Anyway, moving on from the details of these dust-ups, there is an interesting issue underlying both situations. Gary Goldhammer first posed the question in relation to the smurfette blog and Steve, but it is equally applicable to Scoble: are very well known bloggers public figures, and as such, subject to a level of public scrutiny that normally we would call an invasion of privacy? In other words, negative attacks.
The possibility of negative attacks is one of the most oft-cited reasons why companies don’t embrace blogging (mentioned by John Wagner in the comments). Companies are afraid that having/putting their employees in a public venue opens them up to negative attacks. And they are right. It might. Might not. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t embrace blogging. They should. For all the reasons we all know.
But we truly haven’t given enough attention to the fact that if you blog publicly (not anonymously), you are a public figure. Full stop. Some may be more famous than others, but the minute you post, you are part of the public record. What you say can be used "fer you or aginst you" and you can’t control it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only off the record comment is the one you haven’t uttered or written. Once it’s out there, it can go ever so far. Think of all the folks — a to z list — that have gotten into unexpected hot water because they just weren’t prepared for the impact of their blogged statements or actions. They didn’t realize that once they blogged it, they were no longer private citizens with personal opinions. It was public, baby. Subject to all sorts of new rules that most folks just aren’t prepared for.
What should we do? I’ve mentioned this in past. I think companies should give their employees who blog (whether personally or for the company) some basic communications training to help them deal with the fact that they are now quasi-public figures. When you blog under your own name, you own it. Forever. Most employees in a firm have never been in this position, and the first time they get roasted, it is going to hurt. Help them prepare. That doesn’t mean stifling or controlling their words. It means helping them understand how their posts will impact others so they can make an informed decision about what they write.
This kind of training would be at least as (and probably more) valuable than the usual corporate orientation.
Thoughts?
Tags: blogging, ethics, communications training, bloggers as public figures
Powered by Qumana
This is the least pleasant post I have ever written. But I am going to write it anyway. Because I am really pissed off, and this is my blog.
Male PR bloggers: do you understand that the reason so many of your female peers are less than impressed with the blog that rhymes with Smurfette is not the digs at Steve or BL. They are big kids, they can handle it. It is the negative stereotype of women that drives us to distraction.
We have worked very hard in our careers, and are proud of our achievements. We have dealt with the "she’s too pretty," "not pretty enough," "aggressive," "too soft," "sleeping with the boss," "going to get married and have kids anyway," not to mention the glass/plexiglass ceiling and have been successful despite the roadblocks. With all due respect, there is absolutely no way a businessman can understand the issues faced by a businesswoman. In any industry.
And that is why many of us were less than pleased with the stereotyped persona of the PR gossip blog that has consumed so much attention this week. It was everything we have worked so hard to overcome. It was hard to believe that another woman wrote it. Oh, wait a minute..maybe it wasn’t a woman. And I don’t really care who wrote the damn blog, it’s the stereotype that does the damage. That it might be a man perpetuating his wet dream just makes it even more disgusting.
Yet the coverage in the blogosphere has been focused on the digs, and has (for the most part) ignored the women bloggers. Just today more than a few posts that were really really trying to be even handed still only represented the opinions of men on this topic. Pardon me, but yuck.
So let’s hear from the women PR bloggers. What did they think of this PR gossip blog? Oh.. wait a minute. None of us fell for this crap. We thought it was … crap. Hmmm.
And to give credit where credit is due, more than a few guys stepped up to the plate.They got it. Robert French. Todd Defren. Daniel Bernstein. Gary Goldhammer. Mike Krempasky. Thanks.
The rest of you? We still like you, but get with the program.
And Amanda. She (or he) just keeps insulting other women. In her/his/its blog and in comments on others. So pardon me, but fuck off until you have the guts to attach your real name to your opinions. Google Amanda Chapel.
PS – this replaces the post I promised to write about neutering my dog if the smurfette blogger proved to be male. Uncross your legs, guys, we’re not looking for you….
Tags: PR, public relations, ethics, blogging, bloggers, sexual politics
Powered by Qumana
It’s inevitable. Sooner or later, you will blog about something in which you have a financial interest. Stands to reason. Your blog is about things that interest you, which is bound to include your work and companies you advise, either as a consultant or a board member.
But… you have to disclose your interests. Your readers need to know up front where you are coming from.
The good news is that most business bloggers get this, and handle it loud and clear in the text of posts about something which they or their firm has an interest.
I think we have to take it a step further. Our relationships also affect how we think about issues that may not be so clearly related to a specific company or client as to merit a mention in a post.
That’s why I am now listing my current and past clients on my About page. There’s also a link to my CV if readers are curious about past employers. Next step is to break out of the TypePad constraints to present all this info more clearly. When I have time. 🙂
Many business bloggers already have this information somewhere on their blog. But not all.
It’s time.
If you need something more robust, take a look at Stowe Boyd’s Shorthand for Disclosure. It’s probably more than most of us need, but if you have a number of varied and complex relationships, something like it might work for you.
Tags: blogging, ethics, disclosure, disclosing business relationships.
Powered by Qumana
