News must be really hard to follow for an everyday consumer of a newspaper website. First tweets go out, sometimes with no links to additional coverage. Then a few grafs go up on a blog, followed by additional updates, either to the top of that post or as new posts. Eventually, a print story gets started, which is posted through an entirely different workflow onto a different-looking story page.

The question is: Can a company cash in on, and claim ownership of, an employee’s social media account, and if so, what does that mean for workers who are increasingly posting to Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus during work hours?

A lawsuit filed in July could provide some answers.

So while Judge Hernandez’s decision clearly presented interesting issues, it wasn’t novel. Nor was it so egregiously flawed to merit the widespread attention it received. When we look back in a few years, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Crystal Cox will be a minor footnote in the development of libel law and its adaptation to the digital era.

The cruel truth of the emerging networked news environment is that reporters are as disempowered as they have ever been, writing more often, under more pressure, with less autonomy, about more trivial things than under the previous monopolistic regime. Indeed, if one were looking for ways to undermine reporters in their work, FON ideas would be a good place to start[.]

Definitely an article to spark discussion, and I think in many ways a well-done deflating of some egos that IMHO need it.