Scott Rosenberg, Salon's managing editor, takes me to task for this week's "not-for-quote-by-press" comment:

When you post something on a public weblog, you're posting it to the open Web, which is to say, you are making it public to anyone who follows a link to it. ...
But, um, Ed, you've posted words on the Web that are readable by hundreds of millions of people. I'm afraid the cat's out of the bag. If a reporter (or anyone) wants to quote you, you can't say, "Sorry, that was off the record." If you don't want to be quoted, post your comment in a private forum!
OK, so this is fair and interesting criticism.  

Here's what I was trying to do.  Many high profile bloggers explicitly disclaim their postings as "not necesarily the views of their employer".  Maybe I should have stuck with that line -- "not necessarily the view of IBM; if you want IBM's official position, please contact Text100 etc."

By writing it the way I did, what I was trying to convey was that my perspective was still shaping, and that out of respect for the ongoing relationships that exist, I'd prefer not to have that posting quoted.  There are plenty of times that I speak to or get e-mails from reporters and they provide information as background or even rumor... and then ask me not to blog it.  While I truly can't stop anyone from quoting the blog, the phrase was meant to convey the same kind of give-and-take...here's my thoughts, I'd like to get them out there, but there's more thought coming and rather than let this in some way be taken as IBM's policy, let's be interactive.

IBM is actually working on a formal blogging policy for employees right now; I've got a to-do on the weekend list to visit the wiki where it's being shaped and formed to offer perspective.  Maybe one element should be to have a form of "press policy" like Scoble does.

Post a Comment