Save It for the News Room

The opinion of a survey of newspaper editors on the question of blogging:

According to a survey I recently conducted, approximately 44% of newspaper editors and publishers wouldn’t allow their staff writers to maintain personal blogs without prior approval.

...

“Blogging is not just a conversation with an intimate, trusted family member or friend,” wrote (Everett, Washington) Herald city editor Robert Frank. “…So would I be fine with one of my reporter’s publishing commentary (I’m presuming it’s commentary) about the presidential election, or a local election, for that matter? No. I would be upset if someone chose to demonstrate partisanship over professionalism. It likely would lead to, if not reassignment, at least a serious reassessment of their duties here, and, depending on all the particulars, could potentially lead all the way up to a parting of ways."

Interesting. I was recently talking to a VC friend of mine in Silicon Valley and asked him if having a blog would effect their decision making on funding. His answer was kind of complicated but basically it boiled down to "Yes, especially at the early stages, not as much once the company was in full flight." The basic idea was that a blog either attracts or repels attention to the blogger and the company and if it gives out too much personal information, that's usually bad. Repelling potential investors early on makes it tough later. "You want to be know as the company with the cool technology, not as the company with the guy who has a diaper fetish".

In other words, all the basic human interactions are in play.

Thanks to Simon for pointing this out.