For example, Dancer A has been rehearsing a new role and announces this on Facebook or Twitter. Dancer A does not appear in this role, because I injured my knee in rehearsal, and it's company knowledge since I did it in rehearsal. The new cast will be printed in the program, hence no substitution slip or curtain announcement. Dancer A is interviewed in "The New York Times" before the premiere and is asked "Why aren't you dancing the role?"
That's the dancer disclosing their own information. Different. As far as the specifics on how this information is disclosed (slips, press releases, etc), I can't comment on the merits of how each company handles disseminating the information.
According to this social policy, either Dancer A can tell the interviewer that he isn't dancing the role because I suffered a knee injury, because "The New York Times" is not Facebook or Twitter, or these guidelines cover all media, and I can't tell NYT why I didn't dance the role. It also makes little sense that Critic A can find out the info from any source and not disclose the source, and publish it in a book or article, but it can't come from the person it impacted.
If implemented correctly, the guidelines should cover all media, and make no differentiation between a public fb account or a twitter account versus the NYT. Also, I'm not saying that these disclosures or rules are necessarily followed as written. I know quite a few writers who conduct interviews without going through "proper" channels.
I might not want my knee injury to be public knowledge, but I also might want a pony: my injury has impacted a co-worker, and until there is clear law or precedent by case, or there isn't a human resources procedure for discussing injury under any circumstances, which includes the NYT or a documentary, I shouldn't have the right to take away my co-worker's announcement/description of that impact on his/her career. Speculation, on the other hand, is where the nuance comes in; for example, when he posts that I probably injured my knee because I'm anorexic, party all night, or came to rehearsal drunk, as does how I found out about the injury (eyewitnesses or company announcement vs. my best friend telling Dancer B's best friend).
1. There is law.
2. There is HR procedure.
3. The situations you describe are unlikely to be covered by the policy, since they typically occur far after the fact.
If I am working for a company, and I can't complete a presentation and a co-worker has to give up his/her weekend to do my work, my co-worker has the right to post on Facebook -- the NYT wouldn't be at all interested -- that I came back from a business trip and was too exhausted to finish, or had too much on my plate (the message given to co-worker by me or boss), that co-worker has the right to post that on Facebook. I don't see why it should be any different for Diana Adams' colleagues to discuss Diana Adams' miscarriages and their impact on their careers/the company at length in interviews and memoirs, especially after she's dead and can't comment, than it is for someone to discuss the impact of someone's illness or injury now.
Generally speaking, a FB personal account is a different beast, because there is much more control over the information. The type of situation you're talking about actually does have a recent precedent and IS protected:
http://www.foxbusine...w-water-cooler/ The nuance comes in when you have dancers with FB accounts where they aren't protective of their privacy, and are "friending" fans, journalists and people whom they don't know. With dancers more so than typical private individuals, there is a tendency to accept friend requests from a lot of different people who aren't personal friends, which means the information is being made public. As it relates to Diana Adams, there is a difference between discussing something after it's known, versus being the one to make that disclosure as it's happening.
Whether it makes sense to do so is another story. Dancers have to maintain relationships with each other, and regardless of whether what they right is well within policy, they bear the consequences of telling the public, just as they bear the social consequences of passing on supposed secrets among each other. Dancers, like any other co-workers, can be tactful and give just enough info to be contextual, or they can be unthinking or think they are being more clever than they are. They can write about things that only affect them tangentially. What they can't do is claim to be misquoted when they write it on their own.
If anyone should be restricted from disclosing illness or injury to the public from a legal point of view, it should be the employer, and ballet companies do it all the time, if selectively.
On this last point, it's not a question of employer or employee, as they both fall under the umbrella of "workplace", and those who are in the workplace can and should be governed when it comes to disclosing information learned or generated within the workplace environment. Whether it comes from a dancer operating in the workplace, or a PR staffer is not a distinction that should (or can) be made. And yes, even in a twitter environment, de facto misquoting can still take place, because a single tweet can easily be taken out of its context and given a different interpretation(which is exactly what happened with one of the more "controversial" tweets in this case).
Ultimately, one of the reasons that I favor social media policies/guidelines is that it's a great opportunity to refresh everyone's understanding of what some of these policies are, and what the thought process and legal implications are behind them.
