Blogging Reporter Gets Fired For Practicing 'Gonzo Journalism'
	found on The Register written by Century XXII, edited by Dylan (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 11 Aug 7:15am
		"Steve Olafson spent sixteen years as a reporter for the Houston Chronicle," writes Century XXII. He ran a pseudonymous blog on the side without informing his bosses at the Chronicle. Apparently his work on the blog was seen as unethical by his editor, Jeff Cohen, who told Olafson 'There's no place here for gonzo journalism' and fired him from the Chronicle. The Brazosport News doesn't look like gonzo journalism to me. Did Olafson really compromise his integrity by blogging? Or is he a victim of 'America's self-congratulatory Ethics-In-Journalism Taliban?'" But as MAYORBOB notes, there's a certain irony that the Chronicle is commenting on journalistic integrity.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 20 commentsbest: 5 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  "Off-duty": is there such an animal?   by iarnuocon       at Sun 11 Aug 8:13am score of 3 helpful     The world is rife with examples of people being busted at work for behaviors they engage in at home. In the last year on Plastic we've seen stories on workplace drug tests, man fired for smoking at home, etc., which seem to call into question whether your private, off-duty life is actually yours to do with what you want (IMO, it most certainly is). In the long run, can newspapers successfully claim that the comments you make privately or pseudonymously at all impact your performance on the job? Evidently. It's ironic that Cohen essentially fired Olafsen for commenting anonymously on things that the Chronicle deemed not worthy of notice. But then stories such as this, this, this, and this make me wonder if Noam Chomsky was right all along. Cohen does his handlers proud. insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: "Off-duty": is there such an animal?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 11 Aug 12:07pm score of 3 compelling   in reply to comment 1     It's much worse than that, and goes beyond journalists. It seems to me that although blogs and other means of publishing give people the opportunity, in theory, to express their views and concerns, especially ones of political value, very few people have that freedom in practice because of their employers. Consider e.g. someone who works for a software company, is opposed to software patents and could speak from experience about their flaws... Unions protect the interests of some workers as it relates to their terms of employment, but who protects the interests of employees as individuals entitled to engage in asserting their influence in a supposedly democratic environment? Ok, some people would argue that you can always work elsewhere and even if not, you are still free to vote according to your own judgement, but considering that most people are not in a position in which they can choose where they work, this is yet another mechanism by which corporations and money have more influence than individuals. Effectively, lobbyists not only get to represent the interests of corporations, but speak on the behalf of all of their employees.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: "Off-duty": is there such an animal?   by jmoc714       at Sun 11 Aug 8:02pm score of 1 compelling   in reply to comment 12     I'm just shocked to see an AI comment that isn't idiotic. Thank you whoever you are. hate mail may be sent to: jmoc714 at email dot com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: "Off-duty": is there such an animal?   by blisspix       at Sun 11 Aug 9:32pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 12     indeed. My fiancee is not permitted to criticise his employer whether in a public or private capacity outside of work. his sister is not allowed to live with her boyfriend unless they get married because she teaches at a Catholic school. Many workplaces have confidentiality agreements. Someone in Australia was fired for speaking to the media about her workplace. She appealed and got reinstated. Employers can be so controlling.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Fear and Loathing in Prairie Surveys   by 74westy       at Sun 11 Aug 8:15am score of 0.5 incoherent     A gonzo journalist can not be self employed. Against whom is a self-employed gonzo journalist rebelling when he/she gets stoned and attends the wrong convention? I don't know much about journalistic integrity but when I worked for a survey/mapping firm while setting up another survey/mapping firm and complained when I was fired with cause, I didn't get a lot of sympathy from labour standards or employment insurance. The fact that my new company was in direct competition with my employer was not even essential to the case according to legal precedent. That this case has been deemed to be about journalistic integrity at all says a lot about the media reporting on themselves but not very much about journalistic integrity. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  of "off-duty" and trust   by timnet       at Sun 11 Aug 8:27am score of 3 helpful     As a recovering community journalist, I have to agree with the "off-duty" observation. Anyone in the field worth his/her own salt knows there is virtually no such thing as "off-duty." In my time in the biz, I've seen photographers wander out in all kinds of crazy hours and dire weather to shoot accident photos, a reporter who got out of an, er, embrace to cover a breaking story at 1 a.m., or half a dozen people drop what they are doing in the late evening to get a handle on a breaking hometown scandal. Journalism is seeking the truth and speaking the truth. I know people who criticize their employers in columns; blogging under a false name and giving out inside information is duplicitous in nature. Once a journalist loses trust, what's left? Part of me would like to see Olafson given another chance. But if I was one of his co-workers or his boss, I don't know that I could trust him -- in the back of my mind, I'd wonder if he was blogging about anything I told him on some new Web site. It would make for a tough work environment. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: of "off-duty" and trust   by Custer       at Sun 11 Aug 8:51am score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 3     I don't know that I could trust him -- in the back of my mind, I'd wonder if he was blogging about anything I told him on some new Web site. It would make for a tough work environment. What difference does it make? Any of your co-workers might be blogging about things you said somewhere. They might even be talking about you at the watercooler when you're not there. Right this minute, someone somewhere is having a conversation and saying, "that Tim Mitten guy, he's a kook." I grant that knowing someone is a secret blogger (or not-so-secret, now) helps to justify your paranoia, but why get paranoid about the blogger and not paranoid about the watercooler? Surely you realize they're talking about you when you're not around, don't you? Why do you still trust them? Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: of "off-duty" and trust   by timnet       at Sun 11 Aug 9:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Journalism is different, to a degree. If everyone finds out the ace reporter likes to dress up in drag or the publisher is cheating on his wife, that impacts the credibility of a newspaper. Those are extreme examples, granted, but newspapers rely on trust and honesty a heck of a lot more than, say, working at a fast food joint or being a shoe salesman. Besides, writers are naturally paranoid. We don't need evidence. :) "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Re: of "off-duty" and trust   by Custer       at Sun 11 Aug 10:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Oh, right. Though I think that has more to do with the employer wanting/needing control, not really anything to do with how you relate to your co-workers. I suppose that if you're a journalist in America who has this annoying need for a True Name byline on every story, it's really a problem of your own making. Even without the need, if you're working for an American paper, it's expected. Anybody got any book recommendations about how this happened? I suspect it has something to do with the nasty newspaper politics after the revolution and is probably ultimately Poor Richard's fault in one way or another, but I really don't know. It seems too easy to dismiss it as a uniquely American selfishness. Part politics, part advertising effects, and part selfishness, perhaps? Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Sorry, but we're smarter than that.   by 1fastdog       at Sun 11 Aug 10:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     If everyone finds out the ace reporter likes to dress up in drag or the publisher is cheating on his wife, that impacts the credibility of a newspaper. How? The general public is smart enough to know that everyone has a skeleton or two in their closets. Why should the public feel that journalists need to above such human trappings/endeavours/fetishes? We all have them. It's silly to think that somehow journalists need to be held in the same light while on their own time as they are when they're on the job. Give us a little credit - we can separate the off-duty antics/hobbys from the on-duty responsibilities. Tipping The Bottle & Biting The Lime   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: of "off-duty" and trust   by timnet       at Sun 11 Aug 11:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     I think the whole byline/name thing is of more recent vintage. It probably came from the idea of journalism as a profession (which is comparatively recent in nature ... certainly much younger than our country). I had to do some newspaper research from the mid-1800s when there were two papers in our town. They devoted much copy to slamming the competition. Not a byline to be found. It almost seems (to me anyway, but I'm a freak), that unbylined articles stick out by way of being the exception to the rule. In the case of our local papers, it usually means it's just a press release that's run mostly in toto. But if it were a big expose without a byline in a major paper, some people may wonder why. Or maybe they wouldn't notice at all. Maybe it's related Woodward and Bernstein and Edward R. Morrow and the idea that some journalists are considered a name brand. Part of it is that, as a means of product differentiation, news organs start to use "trust" as an important sales pitch. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Sorry, but we're smarter than that.   by timnet       at Sun 11 Aug 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     I think your comment applies much more to a major metropolitan area than in small-market community journalism outlets. If an NYT journo has a fetish, who would care? If you live in a town of 10,000 and parents find out that the guy who covers the boys' soccer team has a thing for high heels and makeup, it's possible some folks would be upset. The smaller the community, generally, the more closedminded its inhabitants. That said, I really can't find much fault with anyone who uses a Less than Jake song in his sig... "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: of "off-duty" and trust   by Custer       at Sun 11 Aug 11:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Yeah, branding as a substitute for substance. It's a neat trick. Just watch out if Carl starts babbling about the Plastic brand. Come to think of it, I think he already has. Oh dear. Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -- J. M. Keynes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: of "off-duty" and trust   by silver222       at Sun 11 Aug 7:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Why should journalism be different? I don't care where my car salesman or realtor sticks his dick, and I don't care which gender's undergarments he is wearing at the time. I also don't care what Dan Rather does with his time off. I understand that a lot of people would care though. Look at how worked up this county gets about a blowjob. If you're a journalist, it seems like a bad tradeoff for a shitty paying job, doesn't it?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Postscript...   by silver222       at Sun 11 Aug 7:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Marv Albert :)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  As Dylan noted in the writeup...   by MAYORBOB       at Sun 11 Aug 9:12am score of 1     I find it the height of irony that the Chronicle is insistent upon defending the purity of journalism when it is itself selective about what part of the story it's going to tell. I also find it odd that the paper would can Olafson over a blog he was running. I'm almost positive that Olafson's blog probably has had more hits since this story went public than it did in the entirety he was running it before. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  I dunno...   by Rev. DOG.       at Sun 11 Aug 12:24pm score of 2 intriguing     I dunno, I read a bit of the blog, and, erm, my first reaction wasn't so much that they fired him for having it. I think they fired him for being functionally illiterate. Kittysneezes.com: All Things To All People   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Why isn't Carl Hiaasen in jail, then?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 11 Aug 3:48pm score of 0.5 funny     That ol' Chronicle sure did drop the ball on Enron. And it took them boys in the newsroom a couple of weeks to pick it up again. Good thing for the hometown folks that every newspaper in America and every major news organization on the planet were there to take up the slack. Olafson's boss, Houston Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen ... told him to "take the fucking site down", and then dismissed him. Do they really get it both ways? Maybe there was a threat: "Take down that initiative-demonstrating sample of your writing style and investigative skills, or you won't get a reference from the laughingstock of American print journalism!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Hmmm   by paul_holloway       at Mon 12 Aug 7:05am score of 1     As a software developer, in the past my contract has stated that my employer at the time was entitled to any software development work that I performed, whether on-the-job or at home. This was never enforced, of course, but was probably there to ensure that I didn't use knowledge of specific systems that I gained during my employment, to start up in opposition to them. However, this sort of contract can also be used by an employer to attempt to gain control over unrelated ideas that you may have - as DCS communications have done. Perhaps his employer had a similar contract over anything that we wrote that could be considered jourmalism? "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Not everything in a newspaper is cold hard fact   by doogie       at Mon 12 Aug 8:49am score of 1     Newspapers have editorial pages and letters, and op-ed, etc. These features are supposed to be about the dissemination of opinion. It's interesting that a newspaper would want to stifle free speech. It seems to me that if Olafson ran his blog with a pseudonym, there was no intent for anyone to associate it his employer, and they really have no credibility in this regard. If he used his real name or had other materials intimating his relation to the paper he worked for, maybe that's another story. Enjoy it, 'till they tell you it will kill you...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Same Here   by karenblanchard       at Tue 13 Aug 4:31pm score of 1     When I was a staff writer at the Daily Advertiser in Lafayette, I got a part-time job at a radio station on the weekend (just running syndicated programs). Lou Zigler told me I could not do it. But it was alright for the sports guys to have commentary pieces on the radio stations.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]