Fascinating.
By apologising for George-Cosh's behaviour, the Post have essentially stepped into the space that exists between a staff members work and home/private life (I would regard his Twitter posts, even on a non-work account, as not being entirely private but rather the public side of his private self). The problem is the precedent this sets: Is the Post not perhaps setting itself up for a future hiding? Everytime any staff member does anything to offend, it's going to have to step in.
By contrast, in the May 2008 incident involving Birmingham Post blogger Roshan Doug, the newspaper doesn't get involved (except to clarify policy on changes/corrections) even though the blogger is essentially accused of racism in his private life, articulated on an official (work) blog.
Steve Matthewson
You don't have permission to comment on this page.
Comments (1)
Steve Matthewson said
at 2:00 pm on Feb 16, 2009
Fascinating.
By apologising for George-Cosh's behaviour, the Post have essentially stepped into the space that exists between a staff members work and home/private life (I would regard his Twitter posts, even on a non-work account, as not being entirely private but rather the public side of his private self). The problem is the precedent this sets: Is the Post not perhaps setting itself up for a future hiding? Everytime any staff member does anything to offend, it's going to have to step in.
By contrast, in the May 2008 incident involving Birmingham Post blogger Roshan Doug, the newspaper doesn't get involved (except to clarify policy on changes/corrections) even though the blogger is essentially accused of racism in his private life, articulated on an official (work) blog.
Steve Matthewson
You don't have permission to comment on this page.