Big Brother?

Gigit

Gigit

Well-Known Member
I understand that several UK zoos have taken steps to stop people associated with them posting on Zoochat. I don't think it's appropriate to name them as they are entitled to do whatever they want. But is this a sign of the growing Big Brother approach in the UK, or is it happening in other countries too?
Are we really that frightening - a comparatively small forum where at the moment worldwide there are 25 members and 71 guests (including web spiders) online; where about 30% of the members responding to a recent survey are males under 20, hardly the most influential sector of society (absolutely no offence intended, chaps, your day will come!); where any opinions expressed are unlikely to affect the thousands of zoo visitors who are oblivious of our existence?
Is this the beginning of the end of Zoochat as we know it?
 
I guess some would as they don't want information leaked, but we have some members who don't hide the fact they're on here, they work in a zoo and they've never had any problems. Depends on the place I guess.
 
I spose i am lucky, I work in a Zoo and my boss is on here too :) I leave the goss leaking to him.

I can see the point of the many privacy agreements that many zoo employees sign (eg Zoo's NSW) and in a zoo with a large staff base it can be hard to have that one on one knowledge of each employee, But surely they should have enough trust in their staff to not make them sign a legal document.
I believe its about respect too, I wanted to take some photos for the gallery, so I checked with my boss first, and did it after I had finished work for the day.

I believe what is said on the forum can have some impact, but really when push comes to shove, i don't believe it is going to stop the masses from visiting Zoo's we discuss. It's amazing how a small bit of informatin posted on the internet can pop up, especially through google searches, in which ZooChat appears in very very often.
 
@Gigit: there are at least a couple of thousand members of ZooChat, including countless zoo workers and associates, who regularly check out the photos and threads on this forum. I myself am a high school teacher who simply loves zoos but has never worked in one, which is great for this site as I can bluntly state my opinion in regards to either brilliant or abysmal animal exhibits without any fear of retribution.

However, I am online friends with many keepers who wish to remain anonymous and are careful with what they say when discussing open knowledge about zoos. Just last week I was discussing the fact that there is a director of a major European zoo who regularly checks out ZooChat on almost a daily basis, so many of the aliases and nicknames on this site could be people who are of significant importance within the zoo industry. There must be at least a dozen or more directors of major zoos, not to mention loads of keepers, who don't sign in but simply glance through the daily headlines on the threads and photos. ZooChat is the largest zoo website on the planet, and with over 1,000 zoos on Earth you can be sure that there are numerous individuals who work at zoos patrolling this site. If they wish to remain quiet and anonymous then it's probably a safe thing to do for their future employment.:)
 
It is unfortunately a general policy of many zoos - especially the larger well known zoos.

When I first started the site I had no idea of the drama and intrigue I would learn of within the zoo industry - but when I thought about it, I realised that when you are constantly criticised constantly by groups of almost "militant" zoo haters, you do need to be somewhat careful about what you say in public.

I think the zoo policies are generally such that staff are not allowed to post on the internet anywhere (not just on ZooChat) - to avoid information being misinterpreted and misused by certain parties. All official zoo communication then comes through their media offices.

I would love to see more zoos get their media offices to post updates or correct misinformation posted here - I think it would serve them well and help the broader community too.

While I understand them, I am disappointed with the policies they have imposed. I think a code of conduct for staff could be implemented which allows people to post - provided that they adhere to certain basic rules. When I worked at IBM, they created a staff policy (with a lot of input from staff!) about posting on blogs and other internet sites - while many companies were banning their staff from the internet, IBM was embracing it. I think it generally worked very well, and the individual cases causing problems can be dealt with individually.

The ironic thing is that without zoo staff to post accurate information, the amount of mis-information (even if it is innocently inaccurate), can only increase - which can't be a good thing for the zoos.

I think they should embrace the online communities and engage with them rather than shun them.
 
I certainly understand the zoo management's point of view on this one. Most large zoos have PR Depts to handle queries gfrom the public and the media. Staff are told not to speak to the public about certain things, especially journalists. The PR people, however, know what they can and can't say, and what they should and shouldn't talk about.

The same thing applies here. If a zookeeper leaked some information onto ZooChat that was sensitive or to be kept confidential, and a journo from the local newspaper saw it (possibly in a Google search), a story detrimental to the zoo could appear in print the next day.

Zoos have enough to contend with, with organisations like ZooCheck and PETA spreading their fanatical views and propaganda. They don't need their own staff fanning flames through carelessness.

"Loose lips sink ships"

:p

Hix
 
Sim said:
When I first started the site I had no idea of the drama and intrigue I would learn of within the zoo industry
That is almost exactly word for word ;) what the filmmaker Molly Dineen said after embarking on her groundbreaking series on London Zoo made shortly before its impending closure( circa 1990)

Traditionally Zoos have always been keen to retain total control over the information they release, and that which they choose not to. The Internet and 'Zoochat' in particular must make this a harder task for them. But I am sure that very few, if any, of the general zoo-going public ever look on this site or are influenced by its content, though the Press and Anti-zoo lobbies are perhaps another matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hix said:
"Loose lips sink ships"
:p
Hix
Click to expand...

No they don't.

Bad masters, poor pilots, inefficient shipwrights and incompetent authorities sink ships. So do Acts of God and enemy action.

Zoos are institutions which depend on public goodwill, like many other institutions. They should encourage all their employees to interact responsibly with the public, which could certainly include active membership of Zoochat, with appropriate policies and training in place if necessary.

Alan
 
I agree that zoo staff should be able to post on the forum. But I know a few people who have posted comments excited about species or enclosures at the zoos they work at only to get slammed down with negative comments from other members! I understand critisisim is important but I have found that people forget the passion keepers/owners have for their animals and the loyality to their zoos. Imagine being a member of staff who has worked continually improving an enclosure with limited resources coming on this site and people are ridiculing their efforts! Im not saying people can't not like something but perhaps comments should be written abit more tactfully! :) I have been in the presence of a number of keepers and curators discusssing this very site, I personally love it and can't imagine being without it but it does indeed offend alot of people. In short if you want more zoo staff to post accurate zoo info and respond to peoples genuine interests or concerns its time to cool down the negative comments! Btw I just want to say i respect alot of peoples opinions on here and in no way is this an attack on the site. :)
 
Hix said:
"Loose lips sink ships"

:p

Hix
Click to expand...

Yes they certainly DO!

Do any of you have any idea of the number of "plants" that the AR people have in zoos right at this very minute?

It is a sad fact of modern day life that zoos [and many other institutions] HAVE to institute a policy to control what is being said about them in the public arena.

Try to understand that any one individual, say a keeper, does not always know the full story behind a particular event or happening at the zoo. Thus, any public comment has to come from someone armed with the complete facts. This is particularly important when questions flow on from the original post. In big zoos with lots of staff, and therefore lots of egos and lots of gossip, this is doubly important.

Policies like this are not anti-ZooChat and will not result in the end of this forum.

You may have noticed over the years that, when someone speculates about what is happening at this or that zoo, I will often post - "contact the zoo direct and get the facts". At our zoo we regard it as a demonstration of courtesy [or respect as ZYBen puts it] that information to be posted is checked with us for accuracy and the absence of commercial sensitivity.

But, the again, we are VERY pro ZooChat - we would not have one of our keepers if not for this forum!!!!!
 
Steve Robinson said:
Yes they certainly DO!

Do any of you have any idea of the number of "plants" that the AR people have in zoos right at this very minute?

It is a sad fact of modern day life that zoos [and many other institutions] HAVE to institute a policy to control what is being said about them in the public arena.

Try to understand that any one individual, say a keeper, does not always know the full story behind a particular event or happening at the zoo. Thus, any public comment has to come from someone armed with the complete facts. This is particularly important when questions flow on from the original post. In big zoos with lots of staff, and therefore lots of egos and lots of gossip, this is doubly important.

QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more with you Steve.

With organisations the size of TCSA and Zoos Victoria or even Australia Zoo it is impossible for everyone to know everything. BUT it is more than likely, wether it be through radios, or in passing staff are bound to hear things, Everyone from Caterers to cleaners and even contractors can be exposed to information in passing. I remember visiting TWPZ and hearing a keepers radio go off saying "we can't find meerkats". Now you can imagine instantly that all the public would then assume that meerkats had escaped. It turned out that meerkat lodge is the name of one of the tents at Zoofari Lodge and if you heard all of the conversation it would have made sense that they were simply not in their tent.

It can be so easy for anything to be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

Plus it's worth noting that the majority of our large zoos in Australia are run by government departments and communication in (esp NSW Govt Depts) is a bit sad. As it can be with any organisation that has large employee numbers.

It is worth a quick email or phone call to the zoo to get the facts for yourself.
Click to expand...
 
When I hear that zoo staff is not allowed to comment about something which would be pure PR magic (lets be frank, animal are very popular), my immediate suspicion is that zoo is poorly managed.

Sim said:
I realised that when you are constantly criticised constantly by groups of almost "militant" zoo haters
Click to expand...

I find that this forum is the perfect place to spread the opposite, optimistic view of zoos and zoo people.

Zoochat also showed that zoo enthusiasts are many times more numerous than so-called "zoo haters". If anything, this forum showed how few supporters and poor arguments are behind these noisy anti-zoo movements.

When any zoo wants to build up publicity, then unofficial comment on social networks like ZOOCHAT are among the most modern, effective (and cheap) strategy. This includes informal comments and not hiding bad points (it is obvious that some enclosures are bad and animals get sick and die). It is far more effective than artificial, optimistic releases from PR department.

I would encourage any zoo to allow staff to comment, and, in fact, encourage it.
 
Jurek7 said:
Zoochat also showed that zoo enthusiasts are many times more numerous than so-called "zoo haters".
Click to expand...

Sorry Jurek7, I emphatically disagree with this statement. This is a forum for zoo supporters and thus attracts pro-zoo people. The few antis who raise their heads here quickly get howled down. It stands to reason that pro zoo people outnumber anti zoo people here.

There are very, very few pro-zoo forums on the internet but there are many anti-zoo sites with very passionate posters. I would say that on the internet, but not in real life, the zoo haters well and truly outnumber the zoo lovers. That, I guess, is the nature of the internet - every one has a forum to push their own barrow.
 
Gigit said:
I understand that several UK zoos have taken steps to stop people associated with them posting on Zoochat....

Are we really that frightening - a comparatively small forum where at the moment worldwide there are 25 members and 71 guests (including web spiders) ...

Is this the beginning of the end of Zoochat as we know it?
Click to expand...

Would those steps be directed at ZooChat in particular or might they simply be a part of a general policy that employees must not discuss the specifics of their work on-line, in contact with newspaper journalists etc?

In the later case I would not be surprised at all. Such policies, I believe, are quite common in a number of industries.
 
The contract I have with a UK zoo states that I shouldn't make defamatory remarks or pass on sensitive information either in person or via media of any type - there's nothing unusual about that in my book. I joined the site originally to pass on some purely educational material about my zoo (off my own bat, mostly just for the wish to pass on knowledge). Anything I post here would be in the public domain & being told to zoo visitors in person anyway. If I'm in any doubt I check!

I am occasionally a little surprised by what some zoo insiders post, but that's their business at the end of the day. For example, a keeper posting duff information on an unofficial facebook page - that's exactly the sort of thing one would be trying to avoid.

Ultimately you have to have decorum in any walk of life, the internet is no different - it's a difficult balance but it's just part of living in human society. I come here mostly to learn about the animal kingdom, and if I can offer up the odd bit of knowledge along the way, all to the good.
 
Panthera Puss said:
The contract I have with a UK zoo states that I shouldn't make defamatory remarks or pass on sensitive information either in person or via media of any type - there's nothing unusual about that in my book.
Click to expand...

That seems perfectly sensible and it is exactly what I meant by an appropriate policy in these circumstances.

Alan
 
Steve Robinson said:
There are very, very few pro-zoo forums on the internet but there are many anti-zoo sites with very passionate posters.
Click to expand...

I actually took time to check many of the anti-zoo sites and campaigns. All were run by very few people, often 1-2 persons. Sometimes heard claims that anti-zoo organizations are "the voice of the general public about zoos" are false and an attempt to put a big mouth to zero body.

Actually, most strong anti-zoo websites are several years old. It suggests that these organizations themselves change their position.

Also, polls at zoos and public show that most people have what I would call realistic view of zoos. They criticize bad exhibits, but are supportive to zoos in general. Not different to Zoochat where old exhibits and bad zoos are mercilessly blasted. Didn't hear anybody supporting any concrete bear pits on Zoochat.

I hope this embolden zoos and zoos enthusiasts and makes them more proactive.

Disclaimer - I did not check many Australian websites, maybe internal situation in Australia is different.
 
Jurek7 said:
Actually, most strong anti-zoo websites are several years old. It suggests that these organizations themselves change their position.
Click to expand...

It also suggests that some anti-exhibited animal activists eventually grow up and realise that they have been misled by the fanatical few.

The PETAs and Zoo Checks of this world have a vested interest in maintaining the rage.
 
It's just about discretion.

In any profession or career you may be party to sensitive information about you organisation or involved in situations that could be negatively construed by your customers/associates/colleagues if it's mishandled or presented in the wrong way.

I don't think my job is any different, I worked in business before coming here and the same things mattered just as much.

I did check with my colleagues when I first started coming on here, I made it clear that I'd found this forum and found it interesting, I also made it clear that I was interested in careful participation, I trust my colleagues to let me know when even with careful discretion, something may just be a bad idea! As it is they seem to enjoy the stories I tell them about what I've read recently :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top