Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] So much BS
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:32:35 +0000

Go John!


At 11:07 AM 1/20/00 +0000, you wrote:
>on 19/1/00 11:05 pm, Marc James Small at msmall@roanoke.infi.net wrote:
>
> > A completely inapt comparison.  Innuendo, insult, slander, and slur are the
> > norm of politics, and Woodward and Bernstein were political writers.  You
> > are not so.  To the contrary, you are a journalist in a highly technical
> > craft.  As such, your sources become vital to your credibility.
>
>I have sat out this exchange, but screw it. This is so much balls. I speak
>as a long term investigative journalist. Check out my credits on the IMDB if
>you doubt it. Anonymous sources are a necessary part of *all* journalism
>where people depend for their livelihoods on organisations they wish to
>criticise. The idea that all sources should be public plays into the hands
>of those who have the power to threaten, whether explicitly or by
>implication.
>
>Just because we are talking corporations rather than politics changes this
>not a whit. Anyone who has ever come up against a corporation in this
>context knows how intense the pressure they can apply is. The fact that it's
>economic pressure rather than physical or politcal is irrelevant, and in
>fact for people whose livelihood is at stake economic pressure, *even if it
>is merely perceived rather than threatened*, is a very powerful force.
>
>Just because sources are anonymous does not mean they should be discounted.
>However, you need to take into account the credibility and integrity of the
>people who report what they say. Thus, an anonymous source quoted by a
>supermarket tabloid has a different impact than one quoted by the Washington
>Post. Journalists who wish to preserve their reputations are *extremely*
>careful about anonymous sources, precisely because if the information they
>provide proves to be duff, the journalist's reputation suffers.
>
>In my opinion criticising a reputable journalist of proven reliability for
>quoting anonymous sources is, frankly, naive and obfuscatory.
>
>Over and out.
>
>
>--
>John Brownlow
>
>recent photos:    www.pinkheadedbug.com
>   more photos:    www.cinematic.freeserve.co.uk
>         music:    www.jukebox.demon.co.uk
>