[Leica] still more on Leica "rumor" and NYT

[mcyclwritr at comcast.net (mcyclwritr@comcast.net)]

David,

In the interest of fair and accurate reporting, I should point clarify that 
Craig is not guilty of tweaking the sensibilities of the eastern media 
(should that be all caps?).

Call me Mr. Guilty (apologies to Loudon Wainwright III),
Chris Lawson 

P.S. When it comes to flaunting column inches, B.D. might come up short.    

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "David Rodgers" <drodgers@casefarms.com>
> B.D.
> 
> C'mon B.D. Just because someone isn't a reporter, or an expert in
> journalistic standards (which BTW are not codified), and may not have
> written published articles, it doesn't mean they aren't entitled to
> point out that there are things a major new organization could have and
> should have done to get a story of national interest right?
> 
> Whether or not Craig meets the above criteria, I don't' know. But I
> think he made some good points. I don't buy that "everyone else got it
> wrong because..<insert reason>...and therefore it's understandable that
> so did the NYT." 
> 
> To me that lowers the NYT to a follower not a leader. Who then should we
> look to for setting the higher standards in journalism? 
> 
> DaveR
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:10 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] still more on Leica "rumor" and NYT
> 
> And you were a reporter where? And are an expert in reporting and
> journalistic standards based on what? And have written precisely how
> many
> stories on deadline? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> On 1/4/06 1:54 PM, "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.
> > 
> > How do you know what the "mining company told family members and
> others?" Was
> > it broadcast on TV? Did you see actual, talking-head footage? Did that
> talking
> > head say to the effect of "It has been confirmed that rescuers have
> reached 12
> > surviving miners?" If so, I defer to you. I didn't see it. Further,
> who is a
> > "mining company?" How can a company speak? It speaks through a
> spokesman. Who
> > is that person? What, exactly, did he say? Report it, wrapped it in
> quotation
> > marks.  
> > 
> > And that's just part of why this particular misreporting debacle is so
> > embarrassing. Nobody from the wire service or any other reporting
> agency took
> > the time CONFIRM a damn thing. Not one damn thing. See the difference?
> > Spreading rumors and miscommunication versus factual, substantiated
> reporting.
> > 
> > Don't settle for sloppy reporting. Demand facts. Get information from
> numerous
> > sources, whether you're the reporter or the reader.
> > 
> > -Chris Lawson
> > 
> >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: Matt Powell <wooderson@gmail.com>
> >> On 1/4/06, mcyclwritr@comcast.net <mcyclwritr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Not to klck the Gray Lady while she's down, but I heard that today's
> NYT
> >>> front 
> >> page >trumpeted 12 survivors from the West Virginia mine tragedy. Can
> you say
> >> "scoop >hungry?" "Unsubstantiated?" "Reckless?"
> >> 
> >> That's what the mining company told family members and others
> >> gathered. Hardly the reporter's fault that he passed along what was
> >> being stated on the scene.
> >> 
> >> --
> >> MP
> >> wooderson@gmail.com
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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