Reporter's Reputation Hit by Drive-by Blogging

Toronto media blogger Antonia Zerbisias posted an item yesterday about veteran foreign correspondent Paul Workman losing his gig in Paris next June in favour of David Common, who in the past three years has been doing more and more national and international reporting.

For Workman, it looks like a hard slap for refusing to file stories during the CBC lockout (foreign correspondents are apparently not part of the Canadian Media Guild).

For Common, the blog posting has career-limiting possibilities. See also a report and dozens of anonymous comments on CBC Unplugged.ca.

Zerbisias was asked in blog comments whether she asked straight-out whether Common was offered the job. She says she stands by her post, indicating she has details about the offer to Common.

More important than asking her CBC management source about the deal, why didn't she ask Common? Her posting could have a big impact on his reputation, yet she seems to run it without offering his side of the story.

She may have made an attempt to contact the two reporters mentioned, but she doesn't indicate that in her post.  In the absence of that effort, it resembles a drive-by shooting.

Comments

[Joe Clark]

You might want to spell her name right.

[Eric Eggertson]

Thanks Joe.

[Antonia Z.]

Talk about a drive-by blogging. I find your suggestion that I am out to destroy David Common's career outrageous. I have never even met the man.

In fact, I never commented on Common's character or his career. I merely presented the facts. None of them seem to be in dispute.

They are:

1. Common received a firm offer of the Paris bureau from CBC during the lockout, in writing, and bound by a confidentiality agreement. (By commenting on the offer, as he knows, he would have rendered it ''null and void.")

2. Workman is being recalled.

3. I state, and quote Burman to the same effect, that there is no connection between the lockout and the recall.

I offer no comparisons between Common's work and Workman's.

I do not imply that Common had Workman bounced.

I am not responsible for the ire of Common's locked out colleagues, or any inferences they make, in the comments section of my blog or any other blog. I merely report what goes on in the Canadian media bizz.

This was media news. Big news judging by the fuss that is now being generated over it. I would have blogged it if even there wasn't a lockout.

Frankly Eric, I think if anybody took a shot here, it was you.

P.S. Thanks Joe!

[Eric Eggertson]

Thanks for dropping by Antonia.

My point was that if you are going to make a big deal about a locked out reporter making deals with management, you owe the reporter a phone call or an e-mail to confirm/deny, or to offer him a chance to explain. If he doesn't respond, fine. But it's important to make the effort.

I gather from your comment that you didn't try to contact him because you were worried it would nullify his contract? I don't get it.

No one else in your post had anything to lose from you publishing the info, but Common, and you didn't contact him. That was my point, and pretty much my only point, and you still haven't answered the question that I posed.

[Antonia Z.]

How did I make a ''big deal'' Eric?

I devoted two and a half sentences to Commom, stating plain and (so far) undisputed facts, in a 16-sentence post mostly devoted to Paul Workman.

Common's colleagues are the ones making a ''big deal." So are you.

BTW: You have no idea what my sources are, where I got my facts, how I confirmed them, and whom I spoke with.

Did you contact me? Did you ask?

No you did not.

I would not have told you anyway. But you did not even try. So you have some nerve lecturing me.

Enjoy the hits.

[Eric Eggertson]

Antonia: Thanks again for commenting.

I think you're mistaking my criticism of one aspect of your piece for a hysterical rant, or something. Really, all I'm saying is that some common courtesy would go a long way toward telling the story without leaving people exposed to unnecessary speculation, etc., that can be damaging to their careers.

Obviously, you don't agree. Fine.

As for whether I spend my off-work hours doing extensive research on stories, or act like an armchair quarterback and comment on things I notice about the world, it often depends on family commitments, etc. As an amateur blogger who gets $0 pay, I try to follow through on links and do some searching (mostly online) to confirm information I'm about to post, but I don't do anything near the amount of research I would expect from a paid journalist.

I often comment on online courtesy, particularly when I see lapses. In your case, I thought you could have done more checking before posting your item. Based on subsequent info from the parties involved, I don't think your story would have changed at all, except perhaps to indicate how Workman and Common react to the news that someone has leaked details about their employment situation to you.

I think it would have been the decent thing to do, and I said so. That's fair comment. And you still haven't answered the question I posed: why didn't you contact Common before publishing?

(And for the record, I agree that anonymous people who take nasty potshots at others in blog comments are cowards who should either post their names or temper their comments.)