[1452] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: So what is the answer?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael C. Berch)
Wed Oct 9 04:00:06 1991
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 18:09:18 -0700
From: mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch)
To: com-priv@uu.psi.com
Cc: edtjda@chron.com
In-Reply-To: <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com>
In <9110082247.AA14436@magic322.chron.com> Joe Abernathy writes:
> Eliot Lear writes:
>
> > Let me pose a question to you, Joe:
>
> > What's the point of answering your question in any meaningful way when
> > one is likely to be misquoted by your yellow pen?
>
> I'd hoped to avoid this thread again so soon, but whatever.
Frankly, Mr. Abernathy, it is going to keep coming up, again and again,
so long as your journalistic ethics are in question. And from what I
have read, here, and elsewhere, they remain very much in question.
> [...]
> Let's cut to the chase: alt.sex.bestiality is an indefensible
> application of public funds. It's an indefensible thing to bring
> into the public schools. It's equally unnacceptable to allow the
> government to serve as censor.
I have watched this discussion, without participation, for quite a
while, since the original controversy involving your "computer
porn" article for the Houston Chronicle. However, I find it difficult
to stay out after this. Mr. Abernathy, you have finally overstepped
the role of a reporter and assumed the role of an advocate. And from
the courses in journalistic ethics I've taken (B.A. Journalism, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, 1978) I learned that in doing so you have lost
whatever claim of objectivity and fairness that you might have
originally possessed.
Sir: it is not your job to determine whether alt.sex.bestiality is or
is not "an indefensible application of public funds", or "an
indefensible thing to bring into the public schools". That is what we
have school boards for, and elected officials, and others involved in
the public policy process. Your role, or so you have claimed, is as a
reporter -- to give fair and accurate accounts of events, and perhaps
to analyze them, in areas of interest to your readers, under the
direction of your editorial management. I was not aware that it was
within your reportorial purview to render conclusions about
controversial matters of public policy; perhaps before doing so,
especially in a public forum, you should check with your editor (I
certainly will).
Speaking as a degreed journalist, a licensed attorney with experience
in computer-related legal matters, and an Internet site manager and
consultant since 1984, I urge you to cease your self-serving,
provocative, and sensationalist attempts to stir up the pot of
"computer porno rings". Previous messages in this forum address your
concept of fairness in quoting members of the Internet/Usenet
community. Your reply to Mr. Lear exposes your lack of objectivity.
There is little wonder that people refuse to be interviewed by you, or
quoted by you, or decline to cooperate in your "reporting"; when you
cross the line from reporter to advocate, you lose the traditional
deference accorded to members of the press. You say, "better (to deal
with) me than the Baptists", but I wonder -- is there really a
difference?
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@presto.ig.com
