Image via WikipediaWant to know what the Borgs think of the journalism being practiced at The Record of Woodland Park? I didn't think they were paying attention to the decline of the newspaper, but a letter from their attorney says otherwise:
"My client's commitment to the First Amendment is paramount and plainly evident in the way it conducts its reporting and business," attorney Samuel J. Samaro said. "North Jersey Media Group takes great pride in getting the facts right and practicing responsible journalism."
Do you agree? Is the virtual blackout on Hackensack municipal and development news "responsible journalism"? Or is this obviously a case of an attorney who will say anything, if you pay him his inflated hourly fee?
The letter, sent Friday to my attorney, Joshua L. Weiner of Weiner & Weiner in Morristown, demands that I retract references in "Eye on The Record" to the Borgs, editors and others. Samaro calls them "misstatements of facts and defamation."
My lawyer defended the accuracy of the references and replied that none of them would be deleted.
"Please be advised," he wrote, "that any legal action taken against my client regarding his constitutionally protected blog entries will be construed as a selective lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) attempting to burden and intimidate my client into foregoing his criticisms and opposition to NJMG."
Bad enough that they now don't want us speaking ill of the company on social networking sites - grounds for termination.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard about that. You're in trouble if anyone doesn't see you as a team player.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute: You guys didn't know about the social networking ban? You haven't heard of anyone let go after posting a gripe on Facebook about how some of the peons were being treated? "It's the same as if it was said outside the building in social conversation." You work there, dude. Get yourself and your co-workers up to speed.
ReplyDeleteNeither one of you work with the company anymore. Considering that just about everyone I encounter spends a lot of time on those sites while they do their work, there is no ban on social networking.
ReplyDeleteAn e-mail was sent out a few months ago concerning the policy being amended to include those specifics on social networking. As usual, there were no examples, and IIRC, did not even take the time to remind employees of the open door policy regarding grievances.
Besides, if you want to be smart about complaining on Facebook, you set those status updates to exclude your coworkers or other parties. It's easy to do. More people should know about it.
How fortunate are we to have such technological wizardry?
ReplyDeleteWhat if you made your comments before the "rules" were posted and you only had, say 14 friends all told?
Considering most Facebook profiles and walls are hidden to people not on the service, it's up to snitches (looking to kiss up to bosses, etc) to provide that knowledge to people in the company. Naturally, there is a legal line between what you can say vs what can be constituted as libel.
ReplyDeleteGiven the dissatisfaction at many sites, certain people feel comfortable telling their coworkers about it in order to blow off steam - but there is always the fear someone will say something. I'm sure it's like that everywhere, on-and-off-line, and long since before the popularity of social networking.