We sort of understand why the Army, the Navy and all those soldier fighters aren't allowed to blog. They'll be blown up or get BCTs dropped on them or something. But the Washington Times staff? According to the Chicago Tribune, journos qualify as the type of "brilliant people" who should be allowed to blog. We don't understand.

Our bloggod Jim Romenesko explains: when Audrey Hudson's ran her mouth about Jack Abramoff on her personal blog, Wesley Pruden got a little pissed.

Memo from Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden:

Any staff member who plans to set up or regularly contribute to an Internet blog, Web site, or other electronic billboard, posting service or message distribution system must first request and obtain permission from senior editors. We anticipate that most such requests will be granted if they come under these general conditions:

Oh, we so wish we could be there to watch the staffers run their Myspace and JDate accounts past Pruden for approval. Full memo after the jump.

Memo from Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden [Jim Romenesko, Poynter]
Earlier: Operation Blogger Freedom

Memo from Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden

From: Wes Pruden
Date: January 4, 2006 3:59:48 PM EST
To: [Washington Times staff]
Subject: NEWSROOM POLICY ON ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING

Any staff member who plans to set up or regularly contribute to an Internet blog, Web site, or other electronic billboard, posting service or message distribution system must first request and obtain permission from senior editors. We anticipate that most such requests will be granted if they come under these general conditions:

1) Writing and researching must be done on the employee's own time and not at work or during work hours.

2) The topic(s) must be different from those the employee generally covers for the newspaper. Employees are not to report on or publish anything concerning The Washington Times itself.

Similarly, any staff member who sends an e-mail or written correspondence or posts an item to a blog or other electronic posting service must always avoid comments that would reflect adversely on The Washington Times generally or the staff member's professionalism. Obviously, postings that are illegal, endanger or threaten safety, or violate copyright laws are also prohibited.

Employees, especially reporters and editors, should recognize that even though their comments may seem to be in their "private space," their words are a direct extension of the newspaper. This is because search engines, and particularly other blogs, can locate their posts. Thus, what an employee writes in his or her "private space" and on personal time can reflect back on the employee and the newspaper.

This is especially true if the topic is one that the employee covers for the newspaper. At a minimum, editorializing about a topic or person can reveal an employee's personal biases, if he or she has any; at worst, it could be used in a court of law to demonstrate a reporter or editor's predisposition, or even malicious intent, should someone bring a libel action against the newspaper for an unrelated story.

All this is entirely different from when reporters and editors "blog" for the newspaper's Web site. This is part of their official reporting and editing responsibilities. In this case, the blog is written as a news analysis and is edited before being posted.