Barrett Tryon vs. Colorado Gazette

[Inky_Wretch]

He committed the Cardinal sin of posting an LA Times story about the plans the paper's new owner had for Freedom Communication properties. He was told it violated the paper's social media policy - even though he didn't provide any commentary.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/177284/barrett-tryon-placed-on-leave-in-social-media-policy-dispute/

 

[Ace]

I thought his response that he was "too mentally exhausted" to change his posting was weak.

But the bosses were stupid to mess with this. The original post was no big deal.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Like I said on one of the CNHI threads, don't these clowns have anything better to do?

And all he did was link a story, not even criticize them, although I'm sure there's plenty of ammo to criticize. The story's already out there. Don't these highly paid idiots realize that?

 

[Freuchen Icepick]

I'll be curious to see how this plays out. I definitely side with Tyron, but some of his correspondence/tweets in the aftermath of the first confrontation can't be seen as conducive to a constructive working relationship. And, of course, this is Colorado Springs we're talking about -- not exactly a hotbed for dissent and tolerance. So... good luck to him on his next endeavor!

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm amazed that anyone became aware of an event through Poynter. I thought that site closed its doors when Romenesko left.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I'll be curious to see how this plays out. I definitely side with Tyron, but some of his correspondence/tweets in the aftermath of the first confrontation can't be seen as conducive to a constructive working relationship. And, of course, this is Colorado Springs we're talking about -- not exactly a hotbed for dissent and tolerance. So... good luck to him on his next endeavor!

Yeah, if anything, now they'll tell him that the original post was bad, but his reaction, including sending out the email exchanges with the "Director of Content" (aka, editors) is what will be the main violation.

Which goes to prove, again, that the corporates don't have a clue when it comes to the media landscape in 2012. Workers now have outlets when their bosses become too heavy-handed, and the entire world will know.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Dumb as ass from the paper's perspective, and as Baron said, shouldn't they have better things to do? Plus, I'm sure the paper wants to make sure Barrett Tweets, Facebooks and all that as much as possible. To come down on him for the posting of a story on his PERSONAL Facebook account, with no editorializing or opinions of his own, is ridiculous.

If the paper had him create a "Barrett Tryon Gazette" Facebook account and he put it there, it would be a little easier to stomach the paper's reaction, but not much.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Just read the Romenesko story about it, with the copy-and-pasted e-mail exchanges.

I agree with Baron again: That's what will probably get him fired. And sadly enough, he probably deserves it for sharing those. I can't get over why people think they can share exchanges with their supervisors for the world to see and think that's OK.

Is there a chance that after getting the original notice from the editor (I refuse to say Director of Content), that he knew escalating things and publicizing it would help make a name for himself and help advance his career?

 

[DanOregon]

In the paper's defense, Tryon is a highly-visible staffer doing multi-media work, and anchoring the paper's daily webcast.
I don't know how public his FB page is, how much non-friends can see or how liberal he is with his friending or if it is a quasi-professional account (news stuff more than pictures of family and outings) - but he is paid to dispense news for the Gazette.
As journalists, things we say and do away from the office DO affect how the public perceives our credibility and the credibility of the news organizations we work for.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

I wonder what Tryon's reaction would be if none of this happened, and he was reprimanded for performance issues, with some back-and-forth e-mail exchange with his superiors about some of his work shortcomings ... then he woke up the next morning and those messages were on Romenesko's site.

I'm guessing since he shared communication with his bosses, that also would have to be fine for them to do likewise?

 

[Stitch]

I got called into a meeting about a tweet I wrote. The funny thing about it was the tweet was written six months prior. I'm sure I would have been canned if I mouthed off about it, but the publisher just said people are watching and don't do it again..

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Update: Tryon was put on administrative leave, then the paper reversed itself and said he could have his job back.

And Tryon told his bosses to take their job and stick it up their ... well, you know.

http://jimromenesko.com/2012/06/20/barrett-tryon-decides-not-to-return-to-colorado-springs-gazette/