Okay, for today's entry you will need to read a couple of posts from the little sister's blog. I know most of you are regular readers of her blog, but just in place, read these posts:
Post One
Post Two
Alright, you've read them, good. Now here's my two cents.
I would agree that a broad sweeping policy that would apply to all employees of the CBC was ridiculous and I'm glad they changed it. I'm still not sure that they have it right, but it's getting closer. However, from my background in PR, I will fully defend CBC's decision to try to bring in some control.
The CBC like all other media has moved from simply a team of reporters to a mix of reporters, columnists, and personalities. It used to be reporters would report the news and hosts would read the news. Now, reporters interview other reporters, opinions are regularly given, and reporters (and I know many will disagree) put their own 'spin' on the story. The CBC heavily markets their lead reporters and columnists. We constantly see their faces in commercials, and have come to associate them with the CBC.
Now if some of these "stars" of the CBC were to have their own blogs, people would not make the distinction between the views and opinions they hold as individuals, and the views and opinions they offer on the CBC. It's fair for the CBC to want to protect their reputation from comments made by employees that people won't distinguish as not being from the CBC.
I would hold official "spokespeople" to the same standard. For several organizations, I was the main spokesperson as the face of the organization. I was always very cautious when I was "out and about" not to throw around my views recognizing that people may not make the distinction between my view and the organization's view.
The joy right now is that I don't represent any one organization, so I'm free to say what I want on my blog without a disclaimer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with you in many places. Some people DO "represent the CBC" whether they want to or not. Peter Mansbridge is the obvious example. Others are on a bit of a sliding scale -- they represent the CBC in some places but not in others. These are mostly television hosts, though.
However, the mere fact that a person is paid to provide opinions does not necessarily mean that all of his or her opinions represent the CBC. In fact, CBC is usually careful to state that they don't. The obvious example would be Rex Murphy, but there are many, many others.
The note you make about spokespeople is legitimate, and one of several reasons I am professionally opposed to making any one person a spokesperson for an entire organization. It puts too much pressure on the person. When people see an individual on TV all the time representing, say, animal rights, it becomes more difficult for them to make the distinction when the spokesperson wants to have a personal life.
However, I would note that the Internet is changing this, at least a bit. It is now common for company CEOs to have personal blogs, and their readers seem to be doing just fine at making the distinction.
Post a Comment