[10382] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Journalism and the Net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Glenn S. Tenney)
Sun Feb 20 19:40:46 1994
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:39:52 -0800
To: com-priv@psi.com
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
There have been some comments that "mainstream" press has not been covering
net issues adequately. I don't disagree, but there is more to it than has
been said so far. The following are some excerpts from postings (I don't
recall from whom or when) that I'd like to comment on:
>Were my successful predictions on last weeks awards **allegations** or did
>they turn out to be factual xxxxxx ??
There is a HUGE difference between reporting and predicting. I dare say
that most mainstream editors would can someone who reported as news their
personal prediction. Just because a prediction turns out to be true does
not mean that it was reportable earlier, except as a prediction.
> A **journalist** worth his salt should get out there and dig and show
> xxxxxx to be right or wrong.
Most mainstream journalists that I know rarely if ever go out there to
prove right or wrong what someone says in such a forum as this. These
journalists go out to find stories, to get the facts, and to report what
they find. Sometimes, what someone says is the impetus to go digging for a
story, but never to show whether that person was right or wrong.
>I said the best evidence I could get from my sources was that xxxxx did
>indeed offer the vbns at no cost to the nsf.
>
>I heard this for the first time early in september. In December and
>january I heard it repeatedly from people in 5 different organizations.
>Within the past week from a person at a 6th organization I heard a
>somewhat vague and carefully worded suggestion that although the
>critical part of xxxxx's proposal may indeed have been zero the proposal
>itself did have some dollar cost to the feds.
Although these multiple sources may be corroborating, they could also be
unsubstantiatable rumours -- perhaps originating from the same source.
When journalists dig to corroborate, they often find such situations and
their editors do not accept this as corroboration which means this can't be
reported -- yet. Non-mainstream press does not have this same
restriction. This does not mean that the sources are inccorect -- they
might be 100% bang on -- but mainstream press often answers to a "higher
law" of corroboration.
> I have also heard from
>solid sources that xxxxx's prop was technically defficient.
These sources may be correct. Would these sources have had reason to have
seen the proposal? If not, then regardless of how solid the sources, this
would be merely rumour and again would not be reportable.
>I have heard zero from xxxxx. Publically or privately. I know a BUNCH
>of folk there, *all* of whom aren't talking.
These are the types of sources that, if they talked, would be 100% reliable
and would corroborate everything. There is the *chance* that everything
else was either rumour (although possibly true) or "sour grapes" from a
competitor. Maybe there's a reason (other than fear of losing their job)
why they aren't talking -- maybe everything else is false?
It is important to understand the differences between mainstream press'
rules of operation and what those outside of the mainstream operate from.
This is why some of the best scoops come from non-mainstream press, but
also why so much of the non-mainstream press is viewed as gossip or
vindictive (speaking in the general case, and not to anything or anyone
here -- seriously!) -- like the tabloids in the supermarket lines.
---
Glenn Tenney
tenney@netcom.com Amateur radio: AA6ER
(415) 574-3420 Fax: (415) 574-0546
