Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No, of course you wouldn't - not if you worked for a wire service, with constantly recurring deadlines; a television cable network, requiring constant updates; or a daily, which required filing the latest information on deadline. And if you have news writing experience, which I tend to doubt, you'd know that and wouldn't be continuing on with this nonsense. On 1/4/06 3:48 PM, "mcyclwritr@comcast.net" <mcyclwritr@comcast.net> wrote: > True, one would work with those sources. But would one stop there? Wouldn't > you hold off on the report until you talked with a rescuer(s). Maybe viewed > survivors with your own eyes? Of course, you would. Because, only yesterday > the feeling was that chances of anyone surviving were minimal, if not grim. > Impossible, even. > > "Survivors? A miracle! By damn, yes! A miracle! Hold the front page--we > have a > certifiable miracle to report." > > -Chris Lawson > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: Daniel Ridings <dlridings@gmail.com> >> On 1/4/06, mcyclwritr@comcast.net <mcyclwritr@comcast.net> wrote: >>> This exactly the sort of NYT apologist retort I anticipated. That's why >>> my >> original post included a whiff of Basic Reporting 101, which, >> predictably, is >> missing from your reply. >> >> According to Aftenposten (national newspaper in Norway) it was family >> members and governor of West Virgina who reported that 12 had >> survived. That's pretty close to the sources a reporter would work >> with. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information