Motivated by the sacking of Chez Pazienza, former news producer at CNN and Deus Ex Malcontent blogger (discussed here), Simon Owens decided to find out whether newspaper editors and publishers would be okay with their people blogging.

At Bloggasm, Simon’s research began:

To complete the survey, I sent emails to editors and publishers of 250 newspapers — five for each state — containing this question:

Question: Would you allow your staff writers, without prior approval, to blog during their free time after work as long as they don’t write about the beats they cover for your newspaper?

To provide clarity, I added this example:

EXAMPLE: A staff writer for your newspaper covers the local courts and cops beat and then goes home and writes in his personal blog about the national presidential election. He does this without asking for your permission. Would you be fine with this?

The only issue I might take (and this may well be quibbling at best) is whether they would allow (meaning the bloggers sought advance permission) or fire (meaning they did what they wanted and were subsequently found out).  It often harder to get permission than to apologize.  Chez didn’t ask, and was fired as a result.  That’s an extreme reaction.

Simon’s heard back from 39 of the 250 surveys:

Twenty-two — 56% — said they wouldn’t mind if writers blogged on non-beat issues without obtaining permission. The remaining 17 — 44% — either required disclosure of the blog, issued caveats over what subjects couldn’t be covered, or had outright bans on having personal blogs at all.

Some of the comments Simon got back are enlightening.  This one in particular:

“Blogs are really a Pandora’s Box for reporters,” [Bill Doak, editor of the East Hartford Gazette] wrote. “On the one hand you have a reporter who, like anyone else, wants to be free to run home and say whatever he or she wants to say to friends, family, other reporters or on a blog. But the reporter risks his or her credibility and objectivity in so doing. Of course there is a place at every newspaper for those with opinions. But a reporter also squanders their objectivity by blogging, and that blog might also jeopardize the objectivity of the newspaper. So, to a degree the blogging reporter risks much more than he or she gains, not the least of which includes employment.”

What’s striking is that the “risk” of expressing opinions, consisting largely of an open and semi-permanent record of one’s views, is an exposure of perspective and analytical skills.  Whether this constitutes “squandering objectivity” or revealing vapidity is another matter.

The pretense that journalists lack any personal thought is a silly fiction that mainstream media holds in the name of neutrality.  They believe that disclosure of thought would subject them to claims of bias, while concealment of thought protects them from such claims.  I doubt it’s a belief that the public is incapable of understanding that reporters have thoughts, but that they are defensive against those who would attack their stories based upon their reporters’ personal beliefs.

The ability to write a relatively even-handed article is the skill a journalist brings to work; he or she need not be devoid of belief to be a good journalist.  Just as lawyers represent clients even though we don’t approve of their conduct, their job is to present news stories fairly.

But the fact that 56% of newspaper editors have no issue with reporters blogging tells a bigger story.  While there’s a nagging question of whether they would maintain the same laissez faire attitude if one of their reporters wrote something particularly outrageous, or offensive, or just plain stupid, is another matter.  The defenders of free speech still wouldn’t want their reporters outed as inchoate Klansmen or admirers of Jessica Simpson’s intellect.

All in all, I’d say that Simon’s survey reveals a grudging respect for the blogosphere in particular and free speech in general.  It’s understandable that editors wouldn’t want their reporters making fools of themselves online, or opening the door to attack of their mainstream work.  Newspapers are a business, and the value of the business has to be upheld or there’s no cash to buy the newsprint.  Still, the fact that the majority of respondents took no issue with blogging journalists is a positive sign for the blogosphere.

Of course, journalists (again, like lawyers) ought to consider their credibility whenever they write, regardless of the venue.  The surest way to undermine one’s credibility is to write something foolish for all to see.