Faced with an online culture that promotes openness, sharing and expression, news organizations are now scrambling to restrict the online Twitter, blogging and Facebook habits of staffers. According to various industry trackers, big publishers like The New York Times, Washington Post and Bloomberg have all informed employees to watch it when it comes to Web 2.0.

For example, according to LA Observed, Washington Post reporters were told via memo to, “Consult your editor before “connecting” to or “friending” any reporting contacts who may need to be treated as confidential sources.”

Bloomberg employees can no longer “publish Web sites, blogs other online journals that discuss companies, people or topics covered by Bloomberg News…” according to Valleywag.

The New York Observer (via Valleywag) claimed that New York Times editor Bill Keller opened a recent newsroom address by warning attendees not to tweet the proceedings:

Before we get going, I'm going to say something I perhaps should have said Monday, when we did our digital update in this auditorium...You wouldn't Twitter something you overheard at the coffee cart without asking. You wouldn't Twitter the Page One meeting (although it would probably get you thousands of followers.) So I'd be grateful if you would lay down your Blackberries and iPhones, and treat this as a conversation among colleagues.

It will be interesting to see if this crackdown results in any high profile violations and terminations. The whole crackdown reminds me a bit of how reluctant the film and music industries were to embrace new technologies and distribution methods like Napster and bit torrent.

Of course, “news” is a less tangible product than a song or film, but if authenticity and transparency are driving force behind success in the blogosphere and social media realm, how narrow is the vision of media outlets trying to rein it in?

Catching up on some blogs today, I came across this nugget from Fairwinds Partners ("the leading full-service Internet strategy consulting firm") via Valleywag:

FairWinds based its analysis on 1,058 domain names for companies on the Global 500 and Fortune 500 lists. Of the companies surveyed, 35% own the domain name for their brand followed by the word "sucks." They include Wal-Mart Stores, Coca-Cola, Toys"R"Us, Target and Whole Foods Market, according to FairWinds. Some 45% of these domains have yet to be registered by anyone. The study found that the majority of companies that do own these domain names publish no content on them.

Of course, the real gold is found in the comments section of the post. Valleywag's Phydeaux opines:

... if people are going to post bad negative content about your company or products, they're going to do it. I'm not going to get discouraged that say... [instert company name]sucks.com is already taken if I have a complaint... that would probably just fire me up even more to rant about them and I'd get [instert company name]reallysucks.com...

But real perspective is found in Torley's comment.

Now, how many companies own ____rules.com ?

This begs the question, if you had a choice of LifeTipsBlogReallySucks.com or LifeTipsBlogRules.com, which would you choose? Keep in mind, there is a wrong answer.