There’s a lot of buzz here in the Belgian blogosphere and mainstream media about an incident involving a New York-based blogger, who was fired from her job as a bartender after publishing a post on the bar visit of a Belgian politician.
Current Belgian Minister of Defense Pieter De Crem apparently stumbled into a Belgian bar in New York City on Monday evening with his entourage. Following his visit, bartender Nathalie Lubbe Bakker blogged about their visit (in Dutch), talking about how disgusted she was of how drunk De Crem was and how embarrassed she was about his behavior. Worst part, she wrote, was the fact that one of the politician’s advisors admitted to her that the meetings they were there for on taxpayer’s money were in fact canceled because the UN was meeting in Geneva (which is about 330 miles from Brussels). He reportedly told her they had decided to come to NY anyway despite being aware of the cancellation because the political situation here was ‘calm’ and that he’d ‘never visited the city anyway’.
A couple of days later, someone from De Crem’s office had a telephone call with Nathalie’s boss, after which she was promptly fired. This was initially denied by the politician, and it remains unclear if her termination was a direct result of the call or the blog post in question.
Somehow, the story was picked up and got a lot of attention from local bloggers and the mainstream media, which ultimately lead to the Minister having to defend himself about the NY trip in Parliament. Yesterday, he made a statement to the Parliament admitting that a call was made but that there was never any insinuation about the girl getting fired from her job (which makes me wonder why the call was made at all then).
He also stated:
I want to take this opportunity and use this non-event to signal a dangerous phenomenon in our society. We live in a time where everybody is free to publish whatever he or she wants on blogs at will without taking any responsibility. This exceeds mud-slinging. Together with you, other Parliament members and the government I find that it’s nearly impossible to defend yourself against this. Everyone of you is a potential victim. I would like to ask you to take a moment and think about this.
De Crem added that he’s asked his legal counsel to see which measures could be taken to ‘defend his integrity’.
Needless to say, his statements indicating that ‘blogging is a dangerous phenomenon’ spurred a lot of angry (and funny) reactions in the local blogosphere, making the situation for him much worse than it already was (much like that German politician who blocked the local wikipedia.de website).
People, and especially politicians representing them, need to wake up and smell the coffee. The world is changing, and blogging is now a big part of it, with all of its good sides as well as its bad ones. Live and learn. The sooner you get the hang of social media, the more you’ll see the opportunities in there rather than the threats.
Feel free to share your opinion on this story, or blogging in general, in the comments.
(Not sure who to credit for that last picture, but I found out at Bart Claeys’ Flickr account who got it from this blog)
I kinda missed the whole story in the local/Belgian media, so thanks for the good summary.
But by focusing on the ‘blogging is dangerous’-part of the story, I feel we are taking away attention from a more important issue. The meetings were moved to another date and location and they still traveled to NY on our money (yes, I’m Belgian)? And this is easy to verify, it’s probably not like the UN doesn’t keep a schedule right?
Jesus. We know your on the extreme end of the pro blogger society. As interesting as it is, couldn’t you make a new blog and jerk off in that about how great blogging is? As much as I’m on your side, your so full of it that it’s almost sickening.
What are you talking about? Wauters has shown that he will not pull punches; he calls it like he sees it (so it seems). Could you please substantiate the statement that, “your [sic] so full of it” with actual fact-based reasons?
I’m liking Wauters’ content more and more.
what’s really sickening is when people don’t know the difference between your and you’re (as in ‘you are’). how old are you, five? learn to spell.
Capitalization skills: 0/3
Correct use of quotes/apostrophes: 0/5
Irony: 1/1
Capitalization skills: 0/3
Correct use of quotes/apostrophes: 0/5
Irony: 1/1
Correction
Irony: 2/2 – Given that you’ve called yourself Godwin of Grammar, and the majority of errors concern punctuation, not grammar.
Back in the days before blogging and blog comments, I once got out of bed in the middle of an argument to call 1-800-GRAMMAR. I was surprised to have someone pick up.
It was a recording,. Nobody helped me settle anything. I’m no longer with the person that I was arguing with. I don’t know what this has to do with the subject at hand, sorry.
You can follow what’s being said about this story on Twitter using http://tweetag.com/crem
Currently popular related tag is “gevaarlijk” (dangerous in Dutch)
When will these public figures stop defending themselves and realize everything goes away if you ignore the insults? Old media was the same, but it’s how you have to be in social media.
I don’t see anything wrong with her getting fired, she talked bad about a customer in public. She did something stupid(in my opinion) and payed for it. But I think it’s for the bar-owner to decide if it was right or wrong, depends on what kind of bar he’s running.
You don’t have immunity because you’re a blogger and believe in “free speech”.
I’m still a bit divided on that, but I see your point. Doesn’t justify putting a ‘danger’ stamp on blogging, though.
No – you are right. I don’t think what he did was right and he probably is a pig, but that is really none of my business and neither is it hers.
What he did is (in my opinion) irrelevent to this discussion. To me it is about her blogging about a customer. If it was a good or bad post, doesn’t matter, if he did something wrong, doesn’t matter. She was not hired to blog about the customers, but did it and a got fired and his action doesn’t justify hers.
His statement about bloggers being “dangerous” shouldn’t be taken seriously and I hope that isn’t the center of your blogpost.
@ Simon: I disagree. Just because she was not hired to blog about customers, doesn’t mean that there is no circumstance when she should put her personal morals above her job security. This was a judgement call on her part, and she sacrificed her job to expose corruption in the government. I doubt she explicitly violated any terms of her bartending employment contract; do these usually explicitly state confidentiality? Doubtful.
Her boss had the right to fire her, but that doesn’t mean he was RIGHT in firing her. And talk about digging your own grave; his office actually called to get her fired?!? Idiotic from a PR stand point and just totally ridiculous.
Let me see if I got this straight: a slimy Belgian politician is [gets] drunk in a NY City bar, a *PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENT* –He does not have any right to *PRIVACY*!!!!! –It is a public place!
–then someone talks/blogs about it and as a result, loses her job. Belgians may not be Germans, but there is something *nazi* about all this…
“Everything under the sun is on ‘public domain’. Thus, it might end up on the web, too. Get used to it, or stay at home.”
Yup agree with you.. nowadays, you can’t keep a secret unless if you are the only one who knows about the secret..
Yesterday Arrington mentioned smth like ‘aggregate’ truth. But how can you tell, whether initial source is trustworthy or its a prepaid libel? People ususally feel very enthusiastic about propagating some stuff that they want to believe in (like corrupt or at least dead drunk politicians).
There is no reputational risk for an anonymous blogger. Once he cares he is probably a ‘traditional’ media source. The most importatnt part of regular marketing is confidence, isn’t it?
Good point, but there are no anonymous bloggers involved here.
Simon, you are right about trust. Trust is something really important in digital life, as in real life. I am convinced the community needs a Trust Index, and we @ Venyo.org are working on creating such an index (called Vindex), based on “by-the-community” ratings. In difficult circumstances as we face now, find trustworthy people and businesses seems even more important!
FYI plugs are DOA at TC. Moron.
I’d say the source was truthful in this instance: given that she lost her job over it, its pretty likely she was there!
As I already blogged in Dutch (http://www.blog...e-mijnheer.html), I don’t mind the firing, I am willing to let parliament decide if the trip to NY was justified or not, but it is the lying about having made the phone call that has me angry.
It should be a reminder to not just politicians but everyone that you should be careful of how you conduct yourself in public.
Thank goodness someone gets it! Well said!
Blogs: If you´re small you can do great things and become smaller…
I agree with Simon. Free speech without ethics is “British tabloid”ing.
she put it on her blog because of the fact that he was acting like a pig, was there without a good reason on taxpayers money. MY MONEY, i live in belgium, i payed my share in this asshole’s pleasure trip. He prolly fucked some hookers at my expense to.
sorry if i sound kinda harsh but this stuff pisses me off.
Maybe, just maybe, the fact that we can blog about anything at all will make us ALL more responsible – ie those who blog and those who we blog about. There are consequences to everything we do and we will all have to be more aware of this as we explore the use of social media. Maybe social media will become our social consciousness as long as it remains unabridged?
Getting drunk is one thing, doing that on tax-payers’ money, abusing power, lying, and then threatening freedom of speech are something else altogether.
If anyone needs to reflect on anything here, it’s the minister.
If it’s in public, it’s in the public domain… politicians should know this by now. The fact that a bartender spotted him and spoke out is a moot point. Anybody in that bar could have done the same thing.
Blogs and the likes of Twitter make it easier for us all to share and spread information, and if that information is inaccurate then there are potential problems.
People generally need to be more responsible. It’s no bad thing…
I wonder…when a paparazzi captures a personal moment not only he is not loosing his job but he get paid a gr8 amount of money.
On the other hand, when a blogger writes about, she looses her job.
Apparently there is a need to understand the public exposed ppl that as social media grows, they will have more “paparazzies” on their backs.
Social media is just the new media, they will accepted!
“when a paparazzi captures a personal moment not only he is not loosing his job but he get paid a gr8 amount of money.”
Because it is his job.
Great post, Robin! I couldn’t agree more with your closing statement. This is the kind of story we need to make people understand the transition that is occurring from old school journalism to new, social media.
Sorry, but maybe something I do not understand correct… We are talking about New York in USA?
Yes.
We started to get pissed when it became clear he lied about the story. He first said somebody from his team didn’t call the bar onwer, but yesterday, when asked about it in the parliament, he had to confess somebody did make a call.
And he made it worse with his quote. Instead of getting furious (and getting her fired), he should have started a conversation with the blogger. “Yes I was there, yes we enjoyed a drink, so what?” Case closed.
For the record, blogging is great, not dangerous. He needs some lessons on social media and how to talk to Bloggers. Urgently, because it’s not a good day for Pieter De Crem in the Belgian blogosphere today.
It sounds like the politician is worried about greater accountability. If the story was incorrect, it probably would have been easy to diffuse with “We actually attended meetings with X, Y and Z” or “No, we didn’t use taxpayer money” or “We weren’t informed of the cancellation until after we arrived”. All acceptable ways to get out of trouble, if any of them were true.
The bar owner was also within his rights to fire her for blabbing about customers. That’s bad for business and she should be working, not doing research for her blog.
It seems like there are a few issues going on here. One is freedom of the press. As a blogger, I think people should have that freedom.
The other is that when you work in an establishment, you have to follow employee rules. So, if a reporter also moonlights at some other job, then the rules of that job apply for them when they are at work.
So, if I blog and am a customer at the bar and observe some errant politician, I will feel that I can freely blog about him as I’m in a public space. However, if I’m working as a waitress, then I’m not customer/stealth-blogger-citizenjournalist, I’m a waitress/bartender first. If I blog then, I should consult with my boss if I am interested in keeping my job.
Then there is the “greater moral question” issue of whether the politicians behaviour was so abhorent that due to a pressure of conscience, job be damned, you just have to let the cat out of the bag.
Thank you.
That is exactly what I’ve been trying to write, with my dire english.
Well said.
Nicely summarized. I imagine that all parties (blogger, bar owner, politician) learned something valuable from this experience.
“I’m a waitress/bartender first”
Surely that depends? There’s no client confidentiality in waitressing, and no bartendering equivalent of Chatham House, and what the politician was saying was in a public space. What really matters here is the public interest – and there is public interest in this – and the woman did the right thing.
You don’t castigate the whistleblower who is just doing her duty as a citizen.
Unless you own a bar and you want to stay in business.
Nail the bastard…
For sure He is a jerk.
The person sitting right to him is an old partymember and see HOW he is smiling at the start of the questioning…
Here is a belgian link:
http://www.expr...lijk/100120.htm
translation:
joker/nl/dishoftheday:pieter-de-crem-finds-blogs-dangerous
saw how the man at the left has a faint smile on his face…
That’s a man with brains.
Pieter himself here in Belgium is laughed with all over…
Just mentioning his name is enough…
Is this the way it should really go for bloggers? http://www.nichea.info
Let the politicians wake up to the new media, after his online mobilization Obama knows this very well now.
http://www.youtechno.info
Blogging is the best way for you to communicate with business world.
I don’t think she should have been fired for it though. She was writing about something in her life that happened. If it was about a regular patron, I can guess nothing would have happened.
Which bar was it?
B. Cafe – http://newyork....ofile/44105863/
Point one for the Minister, in America we have freedom of speech. If you don’t like it then stay home… you may have been better off still having not been to NYC, the beer is also probably better in Belgium anyways.
Point two, in America Public Figures are not subject to privacy in respect to their public conduct when conducting public affairs (this was a charade for a diplomatic trip on taxpayer dollars) and the airing of relevant information for the public’s interest is protected as political speech, even on an international matter. We should know what foriegn politicians are doing here especially if/when they have been critical of American Foriegn Policy.
Point three, regardless of whether all the details could be or should have been verified is not of top legal concern in regards to criticism or accusation of a “PUBLIC FIGURE”. He’s lucky she didn’t provide more editorialized commentary which the blogger has full license to do.
The only measure this non-repetant politician can seek to restore his integrity is to get a bunch of bloggers to say nice things about him, even if they aren’t relevant. Obama used bloggers and the web to his benefit and we see so many office holders attempting the same thing around the world but it goes both ways. This however proves that blogging is public journalism for the 21st Century and it too has a dredge effect. It is not all champagne and roses, at least not unless its with the EU’s or the UN’s money.
Free Speech for bloggers as well Fair Use and Protection of the Public Domain are quickly becoming recognized as fundamental civil rights issues for the 21st Century. It is going to take the tech community to stand up for these beliefs before they are swept away in the drift of political correctness and political expediency for the established elitists who are run by the mainstream media. I applaude techcrunch for being a leader on this issue and look forward to their continued public advocacy to insure our free speech rights are respected in the digital age.
You’re constant ‘there is no downside to social media’ puts you in the same category and Rush Limbauch. I’m glad the waittress got fired. EVERYONE should be held accountable for their actions. If the social police are going to watch and comment on everything everyone does without notifying the victim or giving them an opportunity to respond, how does that differ from a police state where all activity must comply with social norms and misbehaviour of ANY kind must be hidden. Except, of course, for the social media zeolots who don’t give a damn what others think and impose their will and their “art” on everyone else.
Who says he doesn’t have the right to respond? In fact, he did respond. In a public forum, in front of cameras, I gather.
I bet that the blog even had a comment section. He could have responded right there.
Call it what you want but the “social police” are not the police. They do not have the right to take away the rights of others. And the most effective police of this “social police” is inherently the “social police” itself.
If you read the rest of the comments, you will see that not all of us “social policemen” came squarely down on the side the blogger in this case, but the general gist of ideas seems to tend towards the conclusion that the politician was most in the wrong.
The bar owner had reasons for firing her if customers complain and it affects business. With newspapers, there is vetting by gossip and political writers who seek a response from the other parties before printing the story. If she leaked the story to a paper anonymously, then the politician could have responded to the story to give his version prior to print. I think the politician is more upset that he didn’t have a chance to defend himself against drive-by-blogging even if he was in the wrong.
The politician clearly had plenty of opportunity to respond, if not directly on her blog, then in other media, other blogs, etc. Plenty.
My impression is that he is more upset because someone challenged an (his?) idea that government officials are above responsibility and have a stranglehold on public information. Information (whether one calls it “news” or not) has increasingly many avenues of spreading, not all of which can he suppress or control (and thus so easily hide his inappropriate misbehaviors).
Just my impression…
Some of the posts here make bloggers come across as very self-important.
This employee was entitled to make her posting and it may well be in the public good. However, she should have known it could lead to her getting sacked.
Look at it from the bar owner’s perspective, who is going to drink in a bar where your antics/conversations might be reported by the staff the next day.
A lot of talk about freedom of speech, but that freedom comes with consequences.
the problem is that while the first amendment is enforced in USA, it’s not necessary the case in other parts of the world. freedom of speech is a cultural issue and in europe, you can sue someone for bashing your reputation.
after all, what if you start spreading false claims about politicians or any other public figure? don’t you think they should be able to defend themselves?
Sylvain Cyr(Ministry of public works in Gatineau) told me about a secret Document that was created against Microsoft competitors in an ITAC meeting at the Bell Building in Ottawa. They give Microsoft no-bid contracts and were in fact talking about doing so at the meeting.
This was a public sector meeting.
Sylvain was telling me how although the tax payers had paid for it they could not see the report.
SHUT ME UP CANADA, you bitches.
Thank god I no loner fund Canada. So many business have pulled out since the government went all corrupt, good for them.
As long as we are letting things out, I don’t think it was mentioned on this blog.
Tyler Cavell of the Canadian failure MediaScrape AKA 15 other names the company went by from Montreal; the cocaine addict cousin he referred to in this thread on TC
techcrunch.com/2008/05/26/mediascrape-wants-a-word-with-our-readers/
“He also takes a short detour to trash his “Quebec Senior high school drop-out, former cocaine-addict, delusional cousin.” I’m sure he’ll feel much better now. Your investors must be so proud.”
was none other than Dave Haber from Twist Image in Montreal
http://www.twis...m/4105/team.asp
There, now you know everything.
“UN was meeting in Geneva (which is about 330 miles from Brussels)”
Oh, so *that’s* where it is!!!
This story is already dead over here in Belgium. Perhaps not in the blogosphere but the blogosphere over here is dead as well but that’s because it never really came alive.
I never really got that because I stopped watching TV because of those “evil” blogs. LOL
I think the real issue is; why does Belgium even have a Minister of Defense? I mean, what’s the point?
The Belgiun Defense Minister. Isn’t that an oyymoron?
well said mate .. quite a fact these days now
I agree mate , its just like a situation where I get all my stuff for limo hire on the website http://www.what...k.com/index.htm
quite clever huh
do we have an translation of the bartender’s blog? hehehe
please let me know. drop a note at http://typicalp...e.blogspot.com/
Use http://translate.google.com (from Dutch to English)
Well, this is a stunning news. A politician against the blogosphere. He should have responded in a respectful manner. I guess the blogger getting fired from her job is a not-so-good thing. But maybe bloggers must also be a bit careful of who they’re stepping on when writing posts.
Mabey Mr De Crem doesn’t know something about blogging,
but sure is *she* doesn’t know that a barkeeper has to be silent.
To be a barkeeper is like to be a doctor. – This is usual at Austria – I hope in your land too. Blogging doesn’t mean to have the right to say all what you know. She has to learn to use her “tact”.
Her tutor has forgotten to learn this
You can discuss ‘freedom of speech”, but that doesn’t mean that all bloggers are dangerous species!
http://www.face...gid=46310071201
Nathalie an innocent child
keep the internet free! free speech on the net!
DE CREM AND THE POLITICS OF OPACITY
Congratulations to Nathalie, and her blog we badly need this kind of criticism. Fascist reactions like the one of minister De Crem confirm the web’s democratic potential and the continued repression of Freedom of Speech anno 2008: corrupt, obscure individuals like De Crem CAN and SHOULD be criticised, through whateer medium (mass media, internet, etc.).
Nathalie’s blog indeed sheds light on the importance of OPACITY in current Belgian Politics, and politics in general: the less the people know, the better (for corrupt politicians). This kind of scandals should become public more often in order to live in a fairer world. It’s astonishing to see that corrupt minister De Crem is still in power while I am writing this: he should of course have been fired, not because of his smallmindedness, but because of abuse of public funds, and publicly lying about his abominous, shameful act of vengeance: firing an innocent girl overseas, and simultaneously and perversely adopting the role of the victim. I hope many more of us will keep blogging and contribute to a more transparent, fairer world.
Keep blogging, Nathalie!
Keep blogging, folks!
Final note: I visited the Belgian Parlement on July 21. What stroke me was that there are NO windows in the amphitheater where our Ministers debate. A perfect metaphor for some of our politicians: they are trapped in their political games and truly miss a “window on the world”.
Kris
(a Belgian abroad, with a critical view on the world)
She violated one of the sacred rules of bartending; what happens here, stays here, at least for the staff. Bars are sanctuaries. How can you complain about your spouse, boss, girlfriend if the bartender is going to blog it? It’s one thing if another customer blogs it, but the bartender, never!
No defender of the politician… One interesting online phenomenon I see repeatedly. It is amazing how fast people label someone a ‘bad guy’ with very limited information from one party.
The thing with blogging and such in general is that we all have to recognize that we all have our own awkward moments. Then we should realize that it wouldn’t be any fun if they where displayed for the whole world to see an analyze.
Now taking that into account, one has to ponder: What’s more important? What a person in a position of power does with his/her personal life or what he/she does with ours?
This morbid fascination of us (all humans) with what others do with their lives is a real danger. We all cry for our own personal space and rights but want to dig more about this or that person (Be it Angelina Jolie, the Belgian Minister of Defense, or a neighbor). What is it to us if a man likes to juggle, or if a woman doesn’t know how to ride a horse? Where’s this same media reporting about the thousands dying of hunger or facing decimation? Ah… They are working hard on a piece about what Lindsay Lohan or the British Prime Minister have to say about the newest Omega clock.
So what if he drinks a beer? Some will find it sinful, some will find it distasteful, some will find it actually pretty normal. What’s important is what is he doing for his country that might affect it positively or negatively.
We bloggers are readers too… An audience for some other blogs or media outlets. Are we in the business of repeating what somebody wants us to think and say? Or, and I want to believe I’m a member of this group, are we objective enough (and intelligent enough) to sort through it all and dismiss that what ends up being just trash?
It has always been the responsibility of those on positions of power to remain constant… Now it’s no exception. There have always been Rush Limbaugh’s, there will always be… There have always been people brave enough to report REAL news even if it costs them their life.
It’s not a matter of blogging being dangerous, it’s a matter of those in the news being intelligent enough to be consistent, it’s a matter of those who write to do pieces that are fact checked, and a matter of those who read to have an opinion of their own… In most cases, though, this is too much to ask.
I concur with hyokon… many readers (me included) are really fast to label anything anyone with very limited information.
Or how a Minister of Defense becomes a Minister of War