[1501] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Public vs. Private Discussion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Laws)
Fri Oct 11 14:19:06 1991
Date: Fri 11 Oct 91 11:15:25-PDT
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@ai.sri.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9110110722.AA20073@well.sf.ca.us>
> From Sharon Lynne Fisher (well!slf@apple.com):
> I guess I need to say that I do not quote
> anyone without their permission. Period.
The above is a quotation, without permission. Am I out
of line for reproducing it? Or is there some kind of
implicit permission within the context of this discussion?
What about "The President said today that ...". Do we call
him up for permission to quote, or do we just assume that
everything he says into a microphone is for public consumption?
What about printed sources? Do we call for permission to say
"It was revealed in the NY Times today that ...," or "According
to columnist Art Buchwald, ..."?
I don't take journalistic ethics lightly. I take responsibility
for each decision to quote or not to quote, and I'm am eager to
get guidance on how to make such choices. But I do not believe
that Sharon's simple rule is the whole answer.
In particular, I suggest that there are two kinds of public
statements: those that were actually made (a subset of History)
and those that were released (as History, PR, Philosophy ...).
Reporters sometimes have the duty to report the former, and
it should be made clear to the reader (explicitly or by context)
that the speaker has not edited the remarks after the fact.
In other cases, it is equally important to let the source
mull over his or her words before putting them before the public.
Readers should not be surprised if a public figure disowns the
former statements, even if the reporting is admittedly factual.
The latter statements are more binding, and readers should know
that the public figure has taken a stand and is unlikely to
back down.
Unless there are agreements to the contrary, I regard email
messages as essentially private and discussion-list messages
as public-but-not-meant-for-publication. A discussion group
is [usually] more public than a limited-membership committee
or working group, but less public than a televised debate.
It's about the level of a town meeting with an archival
recording.
Within that context, I see no difficulty in reporting that
"Commissioner Brown brought up an interesting fact, ...",
but I would ask for permission, or for a statement on the
record, before reporting that "Commissioner Brown believes ...".
The gray areas occur with "Brown is a supporter of ..."
or "Brown seems to believe ..." In such cases I would recommend
that judgement be used, erring on the side of caution whenever
there is time to do so.
-- Ken
P.S. I should mention that my newsletter, The Computists
Communique, is a service to AI/IS/CS scientists. I'm always
looking for ways that we can benefit and benefit from
online resources in the Information Age. I'm here to learn
from and participate in the discussion, not to report on it.
I really don't see myself as a threat to members of this
discussion group, but let me know if any of you feel differently.
Perhaps a welcome message could be crafted that lets newcomers
know what level of privacy is expected in this group.
-------
