[governance] how to un-digg?

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

It makes sense to put out information, but I am not sure that it makes  
sense to give it to an intermediary from the press you don't already  
know have reason to trust.  fortunately we need the press less and  
less for actually putting out information.  this is perhaps why one  
see  commercial journalists turning into commentators everywhere one  
looks.

So yes, I believe in putting out as much information a possible. I  
believe that most everything  (with protections for individual  
privacy) should be done in open groups with recordings and other  
records no matter how uncomfortable that sometimes can make us.  So we  
should be pushing, and this group does,  for more information to be  
published.

Normally, these days, when people are talking to the press they are  
giving their impressions, their opinions.  I do believe they should  
not bother in most cases unless they know who they are talking to and  
know that journalist's reputation and goals.  I read a fairly wide  
spread of press and am constantly amazed at how differently the facts  
of the story are shaped based on the political persuasion of the paper  
being read.  Whether it is the reporter or the editors, they do seem  
to shape things for the needs of the prevailing viewpoint of the  
paper.  Just this, without the horror stories one hears all the time  
of people being misrepresented (and not just from people with post  
open mouth syndrom - everyone i know who is forced to talk to press  
does so recognizing the hazard one faces for misuse and abuse), is  
enough to make it clear that the press is not in the business of  
informing, but of convincing.  And that, in my view, makes the press  
something other then what it should be.

When I say one should do it only when it suits their purposes, i mean  
it.  If you know that someone is gong to twist what you say to suit  
their political goals then perhaps one should refrain from giving them  
the opportunity to misquote you for their purposes.  And if you do not  
know the journalist you are talking to, you should only talk to them  
if you are sure it is going to help your political goals. Certainly  
put all the information on the net for anyone to read and interpret,  
but I believe it is best to  keep the ego driven desire to talk to the  
press to a minimum.  And yes, unfortunately one of 'your own purposes'  
often includes balancing the danger of being misquoted with the danger  
of having the journalist just make something up.

a.

On 22 May 2008, at 06:00, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:

> Again, Avri, Journalists survive due to information that they obtain
> from sources among whom are those that are interviewed. If you go that
> far to tell news sources to "to say as little as possible to the press
> and only when it suits your purposes", then you are proponent to an
> ill informed society. And when I look at the work you are doing here
> on the forum (pouring newsy ideas), I wonder  if those words were not
> cast into your ears by some one with malefic intent, That statement
> doesn't sound Avri's. AT ALL. I have been on this forum for three
> years already.
>
> Cheers and let information flows without restriction.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance