Many people think that company executives should blog with abandon. There are some great examples out there. Jonathan Schwartz of Sun, Marc Andreessen of Ning and Don Dodge of Microsoft spring to mind. Closer to home, Jeremy Newman of BDO is always great value. All four take on difficult issues with style. Then I came across Mary Ann Davidson of Oracle courtesy of Justin Kestelyn. In Twitter, Justin says:
Reading new blog from CSO Mary Ann Davidson, best executive blogger I know (Oracle or non-Oracle)
Ok - I'm hooked. But oh dear - has Mary dived into a poo pool. Yesterday she wrote a long post on disclosure. This is always an interesting topic if for no other reason than the US has an obsession about this which I find faintly amusing.
In the US, there's an assumption that if there is any question of reward for comment then those comments must be irrevocably tainted. That's naive because it misses the obvious human point that each of us carries our own bias, regardless of where the reward originates. In other words, there is no such thing as objectivity in the real world. Trying to presume that a set of rules confers impartiality is naive (OK folks - come piling in...) In any event, a blog is not meant to be impartial. Usually. That's what makes the medium so much more fun than reporting of record by mainstream journalists.
Mary Ann makes a number of eminently reasonable points regarding the question of disclosure but misses the biggest one of all. Oracle operates a discriminatory policy towards analysts who write favourably about the company. Conversely, it excludes those that are not favourable. This is a long held practice going back to the early 1990s which is known to many of my colleagues. Perhaps Mary Ann is unaware of the practice, despite her asserting:
One of the real downsides to the democratization of opinions that Web 2.0 represents is that where bloggers are competing with or crowding out "professionals," they are not necessarily adopting the code of ethics that some of the professionals have or at least pretend to have. This includes issues around disclosure.
What's more interesting was the Twitter exchange that followed my looking at the post:
dahowlett "I take a refresher ethics class online once a year at Oracle" » link to Mary Ann Davidson Blog
Justin: @oracletechnet @dahowlett: you are the King of Out of Context
Mike Krigsman @mkrigsman @dahowlett: you are one harsh dude; @oracletechnet: you must admit his comment is funny though
dahowlett: @mkrigsman @oracletechnet: not a comment, lifted from elsewhere. You add the context if you wish.
Mike Krigsman: @mkrigsman @dahowlett: Context: why not just say " I have no conflicts of interest. Period."
Assumptions, presumptions...nothing changes that. Justin and Mike have made leaps of understanding that are not based on the Tweeted messages but their assumed knowledge of my thinking. Now everyone has the context so you decide. What was I really thinking?
The real answer is that no-one can ever know because we're not mind readers - even if we think we are. It is up to readers to decide whether Mary Ann's position on this issue in the context of Oracle practice represents naivety, ignorance (by which I mean lack of knowledge) or hypocrisy. Whichever, it exposes the risks that go with the blog turf.
Perhaps this explains why so few professionals choose to jump in the blog pool.
Technorati Tags: ethics
link to original post