Are bloggers public figures?

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