Reporters know whistle-blowers play an indispensable role in uncovering abuses of power in government and business. One of the most famous examples: Former tobacco executive Jeffrey Wigand, who helped journalists use secret company documents to show that Brown & Williamson of Louisville, Ky., intentionally manipulated nicotine levels to make its cigarettes even more addictive.Still, plenty of my readers -- including some who've never worked in a newsroom -- are troubled by the idea that Gannett employees leak memos and other company documents to me.
Anonymous@6:47 p.m., who says they're a former Gannettoid who was never in management, commented recently: "I support you and the blog, but I still believe that sending non-public company information is a violation of the ethics policy. It's not a First Amendment right, which some folks here have tried to argue; just look at the reporter from Cincy who cost Gannett $10M when he stole voice mails from (Chiquita Brands). Sending company e-mails to a third party is identical to that."
Gannett encourages its reporters to aggressively monitor public and private power. Does that obligation stop when it comes to GCI itself? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
[Image: Russell Crowe played Wigand in the 1999 film, The Insider]
What is corporate going to do, fire us?
ReplyDeleteThere's really no debate here. Any information distribution system - blog, newspaper, TV, whatever - exists for one purpose only: to distribute information.
ReplyDeleteEither there's a First Amendment or there isn't.
Walter Abbott
I just don't consider this document leaking. The public has a right to know about anything Gannett does since it's a company that accepts government funds. Give up any and all tax abatements, training grants, etc. and you can go back to secrecy, Gannett.
ReplyDeleteWhat it potentially does is to open a civil claim for damages if there is a loss. Then, lots of interesting things can be learned from subpoenas. You can look back to the HP fiasco to see how far corporations will go to stop leaks.
ReplyDeleteThe reporter apparently lied about having an inside source at Chiquita who was giving him the information. Here, we all are inside sources. Jim is not hacking into the company's e-mail or computer or voicemail systems to get information.
ReplyDeleteThe Cincinnati Reporter cost The Enquirer over $20 million...not ten.
ReplyDeleteI'm Anonymous@6:47 p.m. that Jim mentions above.
ReplyDeleteMy perspective is simply that it is theft of company information to take confidential information, which is considered intellectual property/work product and distribute it externally. As with any Gov't employee that leaks classified information to the press - they may thing it's the right thing to do, but they are still breaking the law.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that the press shouldn't report on it (i.e Jim should report on what he is told), but simply that the person providing the information is violating company policy.
To repeat: Jim should report on what he's provided, assuming it's verifiable, etc.... My problem isn't with Jim, it's with the employees who leak the information.
2:16pm: Yes, corporate may fire you if you are caught sending confidential company information externally. I know for a fact that outbound emails emails to certain addresses can be tracked and archived.
4:03pm (the first one): I agree a distribution system (email, in this case) is there to distribute information, but not to anyone and everyone. The first amendment allows freedom of speech, but not the right to take protected information and distribute it.
Using your logic, I could post whatever snippets from any news source without paying for it because the first amendment lets me.
4:03pm (second one): Ummm no - not true. Just because a company gets a tax break doesn't give anyone the right to have access to anything that company does. It certainly doesn't give an employee the right to steal information.
4:16pm: I agree 100% -
6:22pm: correct - Jim is not breaking any rules. It's the person(s) leaking the information.
Again - I'm a former Gannettoid who was never in management.
What 6:47 is saying is true. But that doesn't mean people should stop leaking information. You can make a strong argument that it is unethical to leak company documents.
ReplyDeleteBut you can make a stronger argument that it is immoral not to leak information that could affect thousands of people's lives. The only people who are really concerned about the protection of this information is a very few at the top of the food chain. Meanwhile there are thousands of people at the middle and bottom levels who can benefit from the free flow of information that corporate discourages.
I guess it all depends on where you're head is. If you're one of the folks who thinks it's fine for big business to do whatever it likes without anyone challenging it, then don't leak anything. If, on the other hand, you think the employees who make this company thrive are more important than the backroom bureaucrats, then e-mail away.
Note also that we aren't talking about the leaking of strategic documents that could put us at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. We're talking about information about impending layoffs, etc.
I believe it would be difficult for anyone to leak a financially damaging document related to GCI. Doing such would require the company to have some sort of strategy that another company would be interested in. We are purely reactive and have been for years. The day somebody in our upper management comes up with a forward thinking idea is the day this company turns around. I'm not holding my breath.
Did any of these staff e-mails say "confidential" on them?
ReplyDeleteIf the info isn't "off the record," then it can be shared. Right?
Where you can get in real trouble is if the communication is from or to a company attorney or legal representative and it says confidential etc, etc. At that point you are violating attorney client privilege. Companies use this to protect themselves from lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteI'm Anonymous@6:47 p.m. that Jim mentions above (again):
ReplyDelete1:13AM: I agree with you in general - "unethical" (in the specific context of the GCI ethics policy) vs. "immoral" which is much harder to define in black and white.
In fact, it could be completely moral and ethical to leak something, but still cost you a job if what you are leaking about isn't a criminal act (employer policy can't require you to keep criminal acts secret unless it's covered by Atty/Client privilege).
When talking about leaking information when it affects thousands of lives, there was a recent debate on this blog about is it better to tell folks ahead of time that there are layoffs coming, or is it better to publicly say nothing until the axe falls.
Perhaps Jim can post a survey asking folks - if they would rather know several weeks ahead, one week, one day, or not until it happens.
As for leaking financial documents - making an email about layoffs public can be construed as a financial document and/or insider information because that information can impact the GCI stock price (as poor as it is). Remember there was a bump in price after the recent announcement.
10:45AM: An internal email doesn't need to be marked as confidential - company policy requires all employees to use the email system for company business use. Clearly, leaking company documents would not fall into that category.
11:10AM: Agreed 100%, but it's not just Atty/Client stuff that's protected, and it doesn't need to say confidential when it's sent internally.
Again - I'm a former Gannettoid who was never in management.
10:45 took the words right out of my fingers. Where would Mr. Worry Wart get the idea these memos are confidential? Or intellectual property? These are freakin' memos intended for generic distribution, not addressed exclusively to me, and pret' near "to whom it may concern" documents.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, why would Gannett care? What does distribution outside the four walls of each company hurt the company? The letters are simply about employment facts, not secrets of competition.
Are ethics relative or absolute?
ReplyDelete@4:03 PM: The First Amendment protects your right to speak out against the government, not steal from a private party.
ReplyDelete6:04 PM
ReplyDeleteHave you ever considered taking a little remedial First Amendment brush-up work?