When you post something on a public weblog, you’re posting it to the open Web, which is to say, you are making it public to anyone who follows a link to it. So I was a little taken aback, as I followed the blogosphere chatter over the Microsoft-Groove deal (here’s the commentary by Groove investor and former board member Mitch Kapor), to come upon this comment by Ed Brill of Lotus / IBM.
Brill labels his post as a “not-for-quote-by-press observation.” He boldfaces the phrase, so clearly he means it seriously, he’s not joking. In a follow-up post he explains that “the posting isn’t my complete perspective on the announcement. … In a press interview, I’d offer a broader view of the deal, and, more importantly, put it in the context of what we at IBM/Lotus have to offer the market.”
But, um, Ed, you’ve posted words on the Web that are readable by hundreds of millions of people. I’m afraid the cat’s out of the bag. If a reporter (or anyone) wants to quote you, you can’t say, “Sorry, that was off the record.” If you don’t want to be quoted, post your comment in a private forum! Put it in a private e-mail labeled “Do Not Quote”! Call your friends and tell them what you think, and don’t let any reporters on the line! If you need time to compose your “complete perspective” on an announcement and don’t want your quick initial scribblings to be quoted, don’t post them.
This is a small point, and there’s nothing particularly incendiary in Brill’s posting that would cause any fuss. I’m just finding it impossible to get my head around the oxymoronic notion of a public Web posting that is “not-for-quote-by-press.”
UPDATE: Read Ed Brill’s reasonable response. Looks like, as an IBM employee, he’s feeling his way through this complex and still-evolving landscape.
Post Revisions:
There are no revisions for this post.