[28025] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Wed Apr 5 02:04:11 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v0421010bb5107da86d09@[192.168.0.1]>
In-Reply-To: <200004050511.e355BQp31490@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 01:46:32 -0400
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:16:55 PDT, Ehud Gavron said:
> > Your list of people below are already emailing me to
> > say "no no, we just gave him info"
> >
> > You're not journalist.
>
>(I'm assuming here that Gordon starts off with "Hi, I'm Gordon Cook,
>with the Cook Report", and not social-engineering with false names etc ;)
>
>Umm.. given the list of names for 1998 through 2000, and the fact that
>I *know* that at least some of them were aware of what Gordon writes
>when they gave him info,
my web pages have been there since early 95....and any one is free to
read executive summaries of interviews that often are as long as
complete trade press interviews.
Further more I have always had a rule that a formal interviewee will
have no surprises. I tape the interview and assure the person
interviewed that he or she will get a draft asciii copy of what i
propose to publish and have seven days to read that copy an return it
to me with any mistakes or technical errors corrected and within
reason things rephrased if the interviewee feels that he or she can
say them better. The interviews are 95% with technical folk on
technical subjects. They get assurance that if they wind up saying
something inaccurate, they have only themselves to blame. but all
my interviewees know exactly what they are getting into and their
comfort level seems quite high.
I know full well that the trade press and commercial news press would
never let a subject of an article see what is going to be published
ahead of time.... they are welcome to do it their way.... I do it
mine and will continue to.... the market seems to like it fine and in
getting people to discuss complex topics in great detail, the comfort
level I give seems to be a win win factor for both sides.
I exert ultimate editorial control... If someone ignores the seven
day deadline I publish without feedback....if marketing gets a hold
of the technical interview and paints it full of marketing hyperbole,
I will spend hours if need be striping the marketing accretion off
the technical text. About 97% of the interviews go quite smoothly
and the market seems to find it appropriate because I am still in
business. As one person complained to a colleague that my stuff was
long and took a while to read the colleague said look..... you simply
aren't going to get key things he covers at that level of detail
anywhere else....depth and detail is my niche.
But also this discussion IS WAY OFF THE NANOG TOPIC OF THE
OPERATIONAL STATE OF THE INTERNET AND I SUSPECT A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD
LIKE IT TO END. night all
>I think it's safe to conclude that at least
>a good fraction of Gordon's listed sources were giving him information
>fully aware of where it was going to end up. If you tell somebody info
>knowing it's going into a well-publicized newsletter, you're talking to
>a journalist. It may not be Tom Brokaw, but it's a journalist. ;)
>
>I have to admit, the last time I dealt with a news agency, nobody
>bothered asking for credentials. Had something to do with the fact
>that they pulled up in a van that had 'News 7' on the side, started
>off with "Hi, I'm from News 7, here to talk to the director about
>the recent FCC bandwidth auction", and they had video
>cameras and employee badges and everything to match.
>
>So.. *should* I have asked for more ID before I pointed them at the
>right office? And more importantly, how is said ID implemented on
>the Internet? I don't think they tattoo 'Journalist' on your head
>when you get licenced, and I'd not trust a JPEG of a picture - it's
>too easy to fake with Photoshop. ;)
>
>Now let's face it guys:
>
>1) Gordon's a journalist, or what passes for one
>2) We're stuck with him
>
> Valdis Kletnieks
> Operating Systems Analyst
> Virginia Tech
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Index to 8 years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
cook@cookreport.com Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml
****************************************************************
