Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!balkan!dogface!wnss!las From: las@wnss (root) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: JSC phone ripoff followup article Message-ID: <1m5XT1w163w@wnss> Date: 10 Dec 90 04:21:47 GMT References: Organization: We Never Stop Searching, Austin, Texas Lines: 58 cs.utexas.edu!balkan!dogface!bei (Bob Izenberg) writes: > - see previous post - We're in headline territory here, so we > shouldn't expect figures to mean anything. > I hassled a friend in the news business about this last night (a > poor repayment for his letting me hang out for a newscast.) Why do some > reporters let officials write their stories for them? My friend put it > down to deadline pressure, which I can surely believe. But, having been > on both sides of the good-natured (?) ribbing broadcast journalists take > for doing superficial treatment of news stories, I don't have much > sympathy for a print reporter (even in a daily) who doesn't ask a few more > questions than were asked here. To Joe Abernathy (the Chronicle reporter) > and to the AP reporter, I must say that I'm still waiting for the facts. > -- Bob Being the producer Bob teased, I wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth into the mix. Generally the people on Usenet are very interested in thier industry/profession/hobby/vocation. And any story regarding their i/p/h/v is GUARENTEED to bring about some sort of emotion. In my profession, we get phone calls, letters, and personal visits from all sorts of people who are either very upset, or quite pleased with our coverage of a given issue. Such is the case of the articles Joe Abnerthy, and countless other reporters have authored or aired. I'd hope I'm speaking for my whole profession, but I'll have to limit it to myself and the individuals I work with. As journalists, we do try to check our facts as completely as possible. But often, we're called upon to make judgement calls, determining whether the pressure of a deadline is more or less important than taking at face value the information given us by a "usually reliable source or informant". And that's the problem with journalism. The reading/viewing public expects perfection, and absolute accuracy. But as objective viewers of a given event, we're occasionally prone to make mistakes. I don't have the figures at home with me, but a majority of the American public gets most of it's news from Television. That's wrong. (I may be flamed by my contemporaries for saying that but ... :-)) The best informed individuals are those who expose themselves to the widest variety of news sources possible. And then, that person must weigh the information they've obtained, and make their own decisions. Textbooks have been wrong. Newspapers have been wrong. Radio and television newscasts have been wrong. But for the most part, the information we present is accurate. But to believe EVERYTHING a person reads or sees from one source of media, well, that's wrong too. So before you flame some unknown AP writer, or Joe Abernathy, or whoever, weigh the information you have access to from print and broadcast, and reach your own conclusions. Perhaps as electronic communication matures and becomes available to the masses, when the free exchange of ideas and information becomes common-place, confussion over individual points can be avoided and the "whole" can be considered. Flames, of course, to /dev/null. But I will do my best to continue this thread, either on the net or by mail. PS - Bob - Hope you enjoyed the broadcast. It was a deadline sort of a night wasn't it! Lance (Remember, It's ONLY Television!) Spangler [...] cs.utexas.edu!dogface!wnss!las Damn fine coffee Norma! Uh, that is you isn't it Norma? ALL OBLIGATORY QUOTES, DISCLAIMERS, AND OTHER MEANINGLESS DRIVEL APPLIES!