The message in Steve Outing’s most recent column is that journalists who blog on their own time make their editors nervous.

There is a certain wisdom behind this nervousness – a paper is supposed to be impartial; a personal blog may well contain very subjective opinions that could (at least) appear to undermine that impartiality.

But isn’t it true – to varying degrees – that personal opinions of any employee of any company can help shape an outsider’s view of that given company? While the so-called damaging perception shift may be different for different careers – journalists are supposed to be impartial; Microsoft employees are supposed to be pro-technology – isn’t this a chance anyone with a personal blog or Web takes?

While I understand the desire of editors to control their writers – even personal writing – I don’t agree with it. And I really don’t see how such a policy is either fair nor realistic. The New York Times, for example, appears very anti-personal blog, according to Outing.

Again, I see the editor’s point, but this seems a little unrealistic. You’re on your own time and – this is the part the editors don’t seem to grasp – if you blog stupidly, well, the blogger is at fault. Why did you hire this chucklehead in the first place? So it’s an issue of control, I guess.

The advice of a USAToday.com editor seems a little more realistic: “assume that you are always speaking publicly.” In other words, your blog’s on the Internet, it’s public, even it you don’t tell anyone about it. It’s not a diary that you lock in your drawer every night. So be aware of what you say and how this may affect you and your company.

While there understandably is a little resentment over an employer’s hold over what an employee does on the employee’s own time, the concern over personal blogs is really no different than concern over any other public action. Actions may have repercussions – if a blogger attempts to push the envelope, I fully support that; if the employer terminates that employee because of it, I can’t really fault the employer (obviously, this is on a case-by-case basis).

But I think it’s interesting that newspapers – a word-oriented world – are so frightened of personal blogs. It’s almost analogous to a totalitarian regime’s fear of the press.

On the other hand, newspaper editors – better than most people – know the power of public words. And that damage control over lose words – however well done and however faultless the associated parties – is just that: control of damage.

The control aspect of newspaper’s fear of blogs is just a way to contain potential damage before anything happens. I don’t fully agree, but I fully understand that aspect of their concern.

The other aspect is more troubling: Newspapers don’t seem to fully understand blogs and their potential strengths and weaknesses. That’s the most perculiar part.