Ethical Blogging?
It has been said to me that it wasn't right for me to talk about the individual in the previous post who irritated me, so the post has been removed until further discussion solves the issue. I like to think that I can write in this journal about the days' events and how they affect me, but I don't know what is appropriate to include and what should not be spoken about. Feel free to comment on this matter.
If someone offends, frustrates, or hurts you, is it OK to post about the incident without mentioning names or becoming slanderous, or should matters involving other people be kept private?
posted by Jenn @ 5:08 PM
13 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I didin't mean for you to completely take it down :(. Now I feel bad...
In my humble opinion, it comes down to the likelihood of them remaining truly anonymous. Because of the public nature of the Internet, there is a chance that your co-workers can find your blog and even if their names have been left out, educated guesses can be made based on how you talk about them.
I know that work is a huge part of your life (takes up 8 hours or more of your day!). For some reason, it made me think back on the years when I participated in a Christian fellowship group back in college.
People (including myself) would often express concerns with a "brother who was not obeying God" without naming names in stating their "prayer requests". Of course in a small group of less than 50, people couldn't help guessing who the brother was, so more often than not, the prayer requests amounted to gossip, intended or unintended. There may not be strong parallels between the blog and my college group situations, but in both cases, the people being discussed can't remain truly anonymous.
This made me rethink my decision to write stories about similar situations I faced when I used to have full time employment. These things happened years ago, but we will see.
David--
If it makes you feel better, I didn't remove the post because of you, though you did make me consider revising the post to be more general (thereby preventing all but those directly involved from being able to guess who I'm talking about). The person who questioned my post said I was talking about people behind their backs, and that is what I am concerned about. Where does a blog cross the line from earnest sharing of an experience to gossip or a behind-the-back type scenario?
Hmm...my initial thought was to say that this is your blog and your area of space to talk about what is going through your life. Therefore, you should put what you're comfortable with (remembering that it is possible for people in your life to read your blog)...that's what I do.
However, just as I was thinking to respond that, I a thought appeard in my head thinking something to the affect of if you are annoyed with a person enough to write about it in a blog, perhaps you should go and speak to that person one-on-one to clear up the matter before you blog about it.
You are writing about it through your eyes, and I have no problem with you writing about it as long as the person remains anonymous. Also if I remember correctly, the focus of your posting was on what the interfaction with the person taught you and caused you to mature in the area of dealing with difficult people, not on bashing the person for the sake of bashing.
I did think about talking to this guy about the incident, but I'm not sure what to say. I already told him that I wanted to have lunch be personal time, not work time. He didn't like it and told me so. And I am still too intimidated to approach him about it again. I'd rather just go somewhere else for lunch to avoid a repeat situation. What else can I say that I haven't already said? I don't feel that I have anything to apologize about.
It's an interesting situation. If he were a brother in Christ, I would have much less problem approaching him about it. But when my grievance is with an "outsider" as Paul calls them, what shall I do? I know that I am to "live at peace with all men, so far as it concerns [me]" but how do I do that? I am really scared to talk to him again and think it might end up doing more harm than good. This whole asserting my right to lunch thing doesn't seem to bring any peace.
I am still a bit annoyed with him, but I'm giving it over to Christ. If I have been hurt or offended, it is His to deal with, not mine. So that makes the annoyed feeling go away, and I can continue to work with him. But what if he tries this lunch thing again? I can't always leave for lunch...
Any advice would be most appreciated.
One more thing. I think that it is OK for me to write about what goes on as long as it remains in light of learning from the situation, not bashing the offender. I want to keep my blog positive in nature, though, so I hope in the future I manage to find good things to report more than frustrations and annoyances.
This question of "ethical blogging" is one reason my style is to not write about day to day events in much detail. Furthermore, if one is in the habit of writing about people, especially friends, there is the possibility of hurting feelings by omission. For instance, "You wrote about the party yesterday, but you didn't mention me" and other grievances, spoken or unspoken. Perhaps this should not be an issue ("it's the other person's problem, not mine" etc.), but my position is not to go there in the first place. Self-control wins out over freedom in that area, even if "all things are permissible" because of course "not all things are helpful".
Far from having the issue settled in my mind, the question of what to put or not put in a blog remains a quandry. A "world readable diary" is a scary notion, a Pandora's Box I don't wish to open. Of course, one day "the secret thoughts of many will be revealed" (Luke 2:35), but are we prepared to face that day this side of Heaven?
You can see the effect of this quandry in my own blog, which can seem impersonal, even to me, not to mention sporadic--I'll feel more like writing when I want to write about some topic which may or may not be related to my personal life.
I sometimes view the blog as a writer might view his or her "opinion column," putting in personal things as it relates to the topic at hand. Other times, I want to give an update of what's happening in my life, so my friends can keep abreast of things in my life. That's the balance I've struck for now between wanting to share and concern over what might not be good to share.
It's interesting what you say about a 'brother in Christ' vs. an outsider. I find it completely the opposite. For outsiders, I can 'write them off' as outsiders since their behaviors are to be expected and 'they don't know better,' so it is often easier for me to shrug them off.
However, with 'brothers,' things often don't work out even after they get talked to. Then what? We should know better, but often we don't act like we do and remain defiant even after getting talked to. I've heard that the number one reason missionaries pack up and come home is because of relationship problems with their collegues, not lacking financial resources. The missionaries are thought to be the cream of the crop, but often they fail to get along.
Excellent post, Shane. I like your blog BTW.
On a third thought, let's all just become postmodern and throw ethics out the window.
David-- What I meant by it being harder to deal with an "outsider" is that I really have no clear spiritual directives on how to deal with them--there're no church discipline rules laid down. I have to work with him, so we need to work through our differences to some degree. But I think the realization that Christ will handle it basically solved that problem for me. Commit all things to prayer.
Shane, I think you offered some excellent insight. Thank you! I always feel uncomfortable mentioning anyone (even anonymously) on my blog. Sometimes even a positive reference can make me pause. Why should I be talking about anyone beside myself in my journal? Is it my business to share about other people, whether the news is good or bad? I tend to think not. And since I'm so narcissistic I'd rather just keep it all about me anyway. ;)
Setting aside the spiritual dimention for a moment, the person is clearly in violation of federal law. The employer's lunch time is yours, which you do not get paid for. At times you might work through lunch, but when you do, you are going above and beyond the call of duty. Christian or not, 99.9% of people understand that.
I know this does not really address how you ought to go about approaching the person. I feel for you, and will keep you in my prayers.
Post a Comment
<< Home