Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
In message <4.3.1.0.20000405095254.00c2b7a0@george.he.net>, Shawn McMahon write s:
At 01:11 AM 4/5/2000 -0400, you wrote:
the Internet? I don't think they tattoo 'Journalist' on your head when you get licenced, and I'd not trust a JPEG of a picture - it's too easy to fake with Photoshop. ;)
You don't get licensed.
Some folks mistake a "Press Pass" for a license, but here's how you get a press pass:
Somebody prints it and puts your name and, possibly, picture on it.
Sometimes; when I was in radio, our press passes didn't even have names. We just gave 'em to any of our journalists who needed them for a specific event. Carried one a few times myself. They were professionally printed with our logo, via a commercial printer who wasn't producing anything that couldn't be done just as well on an HP Color Laserjet. Some places printed theirs on cheap inkjets.
A journalist is anybody who writes news stories.
All of the above applies to the USA only. I can't speak for other countries that may have funky methods of generating extra tax income by requiring some kind of bizarre license to practice what is, in the US, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
In general, you're right, but there are exceptions. At least in New York City circa 1972, the Police Department would issue press passes to "working journalists" -- and these were the only passes that would get you past police lines to cover a story. This was particularly grating to me, since I was a reporter for a college newspaper and I was trying to cover assorted demonstrations that had shut down my school and spilled over into the streets -- but college papers didn't count, as far as they were concerned... We did the best we could with home-made press badges, in the hope that this would give us some protection against having our heads cracked, and perhaps it did work. On the other hand, I don't remember taking the picture I snapped of the head of the Red Squad standing by while a uniformed riot officer clubbed a woman lying on the ground -- I was too busy running away from the police charge, just like everyone else... Anyway -- that experience gave me a strong dislike for any arbitrary attempt to define a "real" journalist. A journalist is as a journalist does -- and, whether you like the story or not, or like Cook or not, his decision to publish was completely in accord with the standards of his profession. --Steve Bellovin
Things are, by and large, what they appear to be. Evolution has given you sensoria for the purpose of making such determinations. A duck is a duck. An apple is an apple. Unsolicited mass mailings are unsolicited mass mailings. Saying something is so, does not make it so. A label is a piece of information attached to a thing. A label attached to a thing, which controverts the nature of the thing itself, does not change the thing itself, although it may change the significance of the thing greatly. An apple which has been labelled as a duck, is an apple, not a duck. The fact that it's been labelled a duck, however, may make it more interesting than the average apple. This is often called "propaganda," and is typically a rhetorical tool employed against the particularly credulous. Confidentiality is the property of being held in confidence, or being conveyed in confidence. Confidence, in this sense, is a state of trust of mutual secrecy. Confidentiality is expected and defended either under contract. Confidentiality exists whenever it is stipulated in a contract. A contract, to be valid and enforceable, must define a reciprocal exchange of value. Exodus has conveyed no value to Gordon in reciprocity for expectation of his secrecy. Exodus has conveyed no value to the recipients of their unsolicited mass mailing in reciprocity for the expectation of their secrecy. Attaching a label which reads "confidential" to something which you then distribute via unsolicited mass mailing does not make it confidential. In fact, the opposite is true. This is, arguably, interesting. Gordon is a journalist. Gordon is an editor. Gordon is a publisher. Godon's job in each of these roles is to gather and sell interesting information to his customers, and perhaps to promote the state of customerhood by occasionally releasing small pieces of interesting information to prospective customers. If Exodus had _not_ labelled their unsolicited mass mailing "confidential" in an attempt to create propaganda, it would be _less_ newsworthy. A tactic of both advertisers and propagandists is to attempt to harness the media by making their propaganda appear to be news. Saying something does not make it so. This is only obvious to those who have two neurons to rub together, however. Information wants to be free, however _this thread really needs to end_. This is a list of unsupported assertions. IANAL. -Bill
At 10:23 AM 4/5/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Anyway -- that experience gave me a strong dislike for any arbitrary attempt to define a "real" journalist. A journalist is as a journalist does -- and, whether you like the story or not, or like Cook or not, his decision to publish was completely in accord with the standards of his profession.
Steve, et al, There are two different debates, here. One is about the term "journalist" or, perhaps, "reporter. There is nothing particularly productive about pursuing that debate. The separate issue has to do with professionalism in the handling of Exodus' publicity statement. Simply re-printing the release and then asking challenging questions about PSI does NOT conform to professional journalism ethics. Not by a very, very long shot. I cited examples of requirements that professional journalism ethics impose, in my previous note. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
participants (3)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Dave Crocker -
Steven M. Bellovin