Interesting, but incomplete article about the firing of a CNN employee on the grounds that he blogged without permission. The article is generally fair and factual, but lacks context on this important topic. Most of the information presented in this article comes from a single source, Mr. Pazienza, and outside of a brief comment from CNN, the sourcing is rather weak. The article would have benefitted from more independent perspectives from other bloggers or journalists, or the Huffington Post.

Narrates the events well. Needs comparative discussion beyond nytimes policy.

I'm glad that at the bottom of this story the writer links to the NYT's editorial policy on blogging. I would have had to rate the story down if they hadn't.

The story could have done more with the larger topic of whether professional journalists can and should do private blogs, and how they do them. There have been a number of similar or related cases, and some mention of them would have been useful.

The article only gives insight on Mr. Paziena's point of view which I assume I could have found on his blog. If there was sourcing from the Huffington Post and further from CNN detailing specifics of the situation it would have made a more well-rounded piece. Additionally this is an important topic in journalism today but the article failed to widen the scope and show the reader the "big picture."

Interesting story. However, it seems there is something bigger missing then just being fired for a personal blog. At the same time, shouldn't the producer have known better not to publish material that could be considered a conflict of interest with the station? I would like more information from both sides and perhaps links to similar cases.

What I liked, in particular, about this story was the author's transparency, achieved by including the Time's policy as a side-note at the end of the article. That said, I would have liked to see more information about other media outlets' policies in regards to blogging, and perhaps some links to other media professionals' blogs (perhaps some NYT writers included). The amount of sources in this article was slim.The article should also have included a written copy of CNN's policy, which may have been nearly impossible to obtain on daily deadline - but should definitely be added in an update as soon as possible.

This piece helps illustrate the problem going on with media censorship and the like. I do, however, believe that the author could have concentrated more on the issue of the ability of a corp. to fire an individual on this basis. Would like to see more than the one source (the fired producer).

I agree that the paragraph at the bottom about the NYT policy for its own staff is what changes the quality of this article quite a bit.

Although the story is told from almost exclusively the side of the fired producer, the story is actually presented quite objectively and allows the reader to examine "the big picture" on their own.