[1048] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Thank you for your comments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Fulton)
Tue Jul 23 09:45:40 1991
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 9:33:06 EDT
From: sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton)
In article <9107152240.AA12596@magic322.magichron-c> "Joe Abernathy" wrote:
> Our coverage
> is an undertaking of the Chronicle's investigative special projects department,
> which is quite a different face of the Fourth Estate than most computer and
> information scientists are used to encountering. In terms of journalism, our
> research methods and writing approach are well established and largely without
> controversy. The controversy comes from the application of these tools to this
> new medium at this particularly poewrful moment in its evolution.
You are so full of crap you're starting to make even *me* sick. Have
you ever read Spiked, by Andrew Kreig of the Hartford Courant? Kreig
described how this newspaper, one of the oldest and most revered in the
nation, became so caught up in the race to win a Pulitzer that it
created just such an investigative arm, the results of which were
questionable to many in the mainstream press. The subject, not the
Courant, but questionable investigative work by so-called investigative
teams was the theme of a four-day Investigative Reporters and Editors
conference in Hartford.
Nothing is beyond controversy, not even so-called ``well-established''
reporting techniques.
The controversey, Joe, comes from people making mistakes and refusing
to admit them. It's that stubborn, self-righteous b*llsh*it that makes
people hate to see a reporter coming up the walk. If you make a
mistake, you admit it, first to your source, then to the people you
mislead. But you can't do that, because you can't see that you've made
a mistake. You've convinced yourself that you are God's gift to
journalism, and whatever you write, people will want to read.
I read your initial piece on the Internet. There were obvious errors
of fact that occurred even to me. The issue, I felt, was blown
completely out of proportion. But what I feel isn't really what's
important here. What *you* think isn't even important here. What is
important is that you offended a tremendous number of potential
sources with that piece, not just because of the tone, you could argue
a point of view on that, but with your naive errors. And when time
came to write another story, you didn't humbly walk back into the
fire, hat in hand, mumbling something about an apology to try to
smooth over any feelings you might have hurt. You arrogantly thrust
yourself back into the community proclaiming your own excellence.
No sir, *you* are the source of the current controvercy. NREN and ANS
have been debated for months. Joe Abernathy is what the current line
of discussion is about. And as a journalist, you should be ashamed of
that.
You say you're the best qualified to write this from the public
affairs perspective. Says who? What are your credentials? Where are
your carefully cultivated sources? What sort of familiarity do you
have with the community you are struggling to cover? Give me some facts,
lather mouth, then *I'll* decide whether I think you're the most
qualified to do anything. Until then, step down off your ego and
*listen* to the discussion. Listen to what other people have to say.
>
> {Excuse the typos ... I'm exiled to a rather balky xterminal today.}
>
Guess that awesome spell-checker that helped you spell organization
wsa broken today, eh? Yeah, that's right, Joe. Blame it on the
technology.
--
Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com
UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430
/* These opinions are my own. My boss doesn't even */
/* know I can write */
