Any CBC employee who wants to start a personal blog which “clearly associates them with CBC/Radio-Canada” now requires their supervisor’s permission, according to a new policy document.
The unsigned policy document also states that this rule applies “not only to CBC/Radio-Canada journalists but to any corporation employee.”
Besides what you’d expect in a document like this, like not using the CBC’s resources (email, bandwidth, time, etc.) to update your blog, the policy states that such bloggers are “expected to behave in a way that is consistent with our journalistic philosophy, editorial values and corporate policies.”
Which means screwyoucbc.blogspot.com is about 15 minutes from launch.
h/t
In other words nobody associated with the CBC is to be allowed to utter any noncongregational opinions in any forum whatsoever. Nanny State likes to make sure her charges behave. That bit about conforming to “editorial values” gives the game away, and the whole idea of “journalistic philosophy” just makes me laugh. Okay, so read “ideology” for both. They will.
Imagine that an employee of a constructino company, or of Price-Waterhouse or Tim Horton’s wished to start a blog advocating for his own pet causes, whatever they might be — the Palestinians, the Jews, the NDP, George Bush.
No problem so far; he’d be perfectly free to do so. Now, imagine that this employee demanded that he also be allowed, in the name of “free speech,” to invoke the name of his employer; in effect, to associate their corporate name, logo, etc., with the opinions expressed on his blog.
You’d assume the guy was either nuts, or a bit thick. He might say, “aha, but I clearly indicate on my blog that these opinions are my personal opinions, and not those of my employer.” You’d have to ask, fine, so why do you demand the right to invoke the name of your employer when you express that personal opinion?”
He probably wouldn’t understand such a complicated question, and would return to his cause to rehammer some point having vaguely to do with a violation of his “rights.”
From the comments at insidethecbc.com:
“Extremely heavy handed. Potentially not even constitutionally legal. Telling employees what they can and can’t do or say when not at work…” — No one’s telling you what you can or can’t say when you’re not at work. You just can’t associate your employer’s name with those opinions. Can you understand that?
“God forbid that people found out that CBC employees have opinions.”
“This draconian policy is enough to bring the CBC/Radio-Canada into disrepute.”
“Further, it certainly meets the definition of unconcienable(sic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionable. Who’s running the CBC anyway, George Bush and Dick Cheney?”
— Again, these are all comments from people who are perfectly free to blog whatever opinions they want in their personal time, and in an unrestricted manner, only they can’t use their employer’s name or logo —
“Why can they tell you what you can and can’t do on your personal time?”
“…a nebulous piece of social control…”
“…as I recall the CBC has already lost fights in the past when they tried to control the outside activities of employees…”
“All this will do is drive people underground…”
“Ow. That hurts my freedom.”
No corporation is a democracy where employees have civil rights…you go into contract with your employer under the terms of the contract, suck it back or move on if the terms are too constricting…
That said; The CBC is obviously aware of the tyranny we live under with a soviet commissariat like the CHRC determining what is and isn’t illegal speech/expression/politics….Mothercorpse has had a CHRC political officer on staff to censor any copy that is broadcast and give the CBC the sanctified blessing of being officially politically correct.
Now, we can’t have employees with unscreened, unsanitized opinion blabbing away freely on the alternate media…this places Mothercorpse in associative liability in any action the politically correct expression censors in the CHRC social cleansing order may wish to make against these “freelancing” employees who associate themselves with CBC but make no disclaimer on their opinions.
The CBC knows how the CHRC works and how its protagonists attack political enemies who fail to politically sanitize their opinion/expression to the ideals held by the new state order….they just want to make sure employees detach their opinion from the Mothercorpse in case they are singled out for political cleansing by the CHRC star chamber.
I see no problem with the CBC policy. Employees are free to blog on their own time about anything they want. Just don’t do it in the CBC’s name. I agree fully with EBD.
expected to behave in a way that is consistent with our journalistic philosophy, editorial values and corporate policies.”
This just has to be a violation of our blessed Charter! Bring on the lawyers, and let’s run up some huge legal bills on behalf of CBC.
Say, where DO they get their funding anyway?
btw, I agree with EBD.
Now is only we can get CBC employees to not talk during broadcasts. That would be priceless.
Define “clearly associates them with the CBC” please.
I mean, I work for NAV Canada. Does that mean I just clearly associated myself with NAV Canada? If NAV Canada had a policy like this, does this mean I need to go to my tower chief to ask permission?
If that’s the case, then, yes, this is heavy-handed. If it only applies to posting the inner-workings of the CBC, then no, it’s not over the top.
I think what will be the issue here is whether or not any mention of your place of employment can lead to discipline. On a personal blog,your experience validates your opinions,so if I am a disgruntled cbc’er,does that mean any mention of cbc’s “editorial policies” is cause for dismissal.This is a slippery slope indeed.
someone from the CBC has to cover the weekends. ever notice how few stories change after 4 pm EST Friday.
you are lucky to see a two stories change on the website, save the sports , for the whole weekend.
CBCpravda All liberal , All the time.
“Now is only we can get CBC employees to not talk during broadcasts. That would be priceless.”
hheheheh.