△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Mark Cuban was not fined for blogging

Both the mainstream press and the blogosphere are abuzz with variations on the same headline: “Mark Cuban fined for blogging.” The more I read it, the more irritated I get. Cuban, the blogging owner of the NBA basketball team, Dallas Mavericks, was not fined for blogging. The NBA fined Cuban for violating league rules against open criticism of game officiating. The fact that he used his blog as the vehicle for his criticism is incidental. To be fined for blogging would mean that the NBA would fine him regardless of what he wrote. A post about his favorite after-shave would generate a $100,000 fine. The act of blogging itself was not a violation. What if he had made his remarks during a TV news interview? Would the headlines have screamed, “Mark Cuban fined for talking”?

We can get seriously carried away with these. I recall an instance back in the late 70s or early 80s when a PR staffer was fired after faxing confidential information to the wrong fax number. He pushed the wrong speed-dial button and the document went to a newspaper reporter instead of outside counsel. Nobody suggested he was “fired for faxing.” Nor have their been reports of anybody “fired for emailing” when they use email to commit some offense that rates termination.

Come to think of it, most of those “fired for blogging” claims were inaccurate, as well. With the exception of a few cases, most people were not fired because they had a blog, but because they violated a company policy. Like Cuban’s transgression, the fact that they used a blog to do it was incidental. Coverage of the spate of blog-related firings proved useful as companies began implementing blogging policies and employees learned that they couldn’t use their blogs to get away with behaviors that were clearly against the rules in a conference room or by the water cooler.

Why is it that new technologies are blamed for the behaviors of the people who use them? It’s easy to look at blogs and proclaim the medium is the message. In some respects, though, the message is the message.

05/13/06 | 4 Comments | Mark Cuban was not fined for blogging

Comments

  • 1.Shel: The former journalist (and current editor) in me agrees with you. The headline should read: "Mark Cuban fired for blogging comments." Adding the word "comments" takes the heat off of the blog itself, and makes it clear that the issue was WHAT he said, not WHERE he said it.

    That said, I think the fact that the comments (and not the blog) were in violation is implied, since blogs are widely considered vechiles of opinion. (And in most cases, they are.)

    Anyway...anytime "blogs" are talked about in the mainstream press is an occasion for cheering, in my view, since it legitimizes and validates blogs as something to pay attention to.

    Ann Handley | May 2006 | blog.marketingprofs.com

  • 2.I don't disagree with you at all, Ann; I just get weary of the tool getting the blame for something somebody said or did. For instance, every time a new communication technology comes along, it breeds fear. Phones, photocopiers, fax machines, email, and now blogs -- they all have taken the blame for the things companies fear people will do with them. If Cuban hadn't had a blog, he would have expressed his opinion some other way...and been fined!

    Shel Holtz | May 2006 | Concord, CA

  • 3.Shel, I agree with you for the most part, but not entirely. Users of any new technology have to figure out how to adapt their behaviors to the new situation. They have to learn what social rules apply, and which ones don't. We do it as individuals, and we do it as social groups as we try to collectively work out what the new norms are going to be.

    Not everyone draws the social analogies in the same way; you and I see a public blog as being somewhat analogous to broadcasting. Mark Cuban may (like a lot of other bloggers) have seen it as being more like spouting off to a bunch of acquaintances. So, if that's his perception, he'd be much more likely to express his opinion in a blog than he would in some other way.

    That's what has led to so many of the well-known "Dooce" firings (including "Dooce" herself). The people involved generally have been fired because they violated some sort of rule, as you suggest, but the violations generally occur because the blogger fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the new medium.

    Allen Glass | May 2006

  • 4.Allen, I certainly agree -- and have counseled -- that organizations need clear blogging polices that need to be communicated to employees. However, Cuban is an experienced blogger who made his fortune in the high-tech world. He knew exactly what he was doing. He's been fined before for behaviors that were not blogging related. He chose his blog in this particular instance and was fined for the behavior, not the blog. I just get a bit weary of the technology taking the blame for actions that would have been taken using some other channel if the technology-based one weren't available.

    Shel Holtz | May 2006 | Concord, CA

Comment Form

« Back