Blog Work - There's an article about "employee blogs" appearing in the NYTimes, a concept which confounds me. After talking about how many job applicants look for corporate blogs to give them the inside scoop on companies, the author finally acknowledges a few paragraphs into the story that "official corporate blogs are still rare."

And, of course they are. Wouldn't the whole concept of a work-sponsored blog be to generate positive publicity? Why would any company publish posts where employees talked about really hating their work? The article notes that one job applicant, by reading the employee blog at one company, "got the sense this was a company where the employees really enjoyed their work." I wonder if there were any dissenting voices included in the blog to allow applicants to see a more complete picture. I want to know where the hard-hitting investigation into anonymous blogs complaining about working conditions and evil supervisors is. That's the kind of inside scoop a potential applicant really wants to hear about before pressing ahead with interviews.

Finally, how can an article about jobseekers using the "essential networking tool" of blogs "to establish a strong online presence, display their skills and advertise their availability" not address the fact that 96.24% of all blogs are of the stream-of-consciousness "omigod, I went to the grocery store today and you'll never believe what happened!" online confessional variety? (This blog excepted, natch...heh) It struck me as though someone in the newsroom said "yeah, blogs...we should write about them again" and this directionless story (that had been done better more than a year ago in Seattle Post-Intelligencer) the is the result.