List-Unsubscribe: 
Reply-To: xerxes 
Precedence: bulk
Status: O
X-Status: 

-----------> This message was posted to the ONLINE-NEWS list. <-----------

Freedom Forum should make its policy clear on which discredited journalists
will be afforded hosting services for rebuttals.  Who is worthy, who is
not?  Otherwise there may be the appearance of playing favorites based on
unspoken and/or parochial criteria.
*******************

>> From: Mark Loundy [mailto:loundy@earthlink.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 1:14 AM
>
>> There is no reason for anonymity on this list.

To which Vin replies

>How many of you lurking out there have ever wanted to post a comment here,
>give an answer to a posted question, or ask a question, but instead have
>been deterred by worries about what your employer might think about your
>comment, your answer, your question, or even about you posting?

>Fear of retribution chills discussion. I think this is clearly the case here
>and on many other professional discussion lists.

Vin is certainly correct in this observation.

And actually, Mark is mistaken.  There is considerable reason for
anonymity, at least occasionally, on most lists.  There are legitimate,
rational, thoughtful, legal opinions, and especially criticisms, that too
often go unspoken for fear of professional retribution.

I had an e-mail marked private just a week or two ago from a respected list
member here (not someone who has remarked on this thread), that made
several serious criticisms.  But the author did not want to send these to
the list.  The criticisms were responsible and reasonable, but were not
made publicly because of the potentially adverse repercussions they might
cause the observer.   Journalists can criticize other professions, and do,
incessantly.  But they have to be VERY careful about criticizing their
own....at least publicly.  Look how Jim Fallows has been hounded for
voicing his opinions.

Last February, when the Dallas Morning News scooped everyone on reporting
that secret service agents had seen the P and the intern together, ...look
how the editors there were hounded into a retraction of that web site
story......JD Lasica noted it to the list here.  The report was
subsequently widely cited as an example of "inaccurate" reporting of
rumors.....  but now, it appears that web story was not so inaccurate after
all.  So who will be accountable for forcing the DMN into taking down an
accurate account that turns out, in retrospect, to have been good reporting
after all?

Retribution and accountability are two sides of the same coin.  Anyone who
REALLY wants to determine my identity could probably do so, but that is no
reason to use a sig line or an actual name on a routine basis.

The posts I make here are my own opinions. There is no attempt to flog any
particular products or services here on the list.  People should consider
accepting or rejecting opinions of a general nature based primarily on
whether they make any sense or not.

Good medical advice usually comes from a physician.  Good legal advice
usually comes from a lawyer.  But what about observations on commercial
models in the publishing industry?

Are "affiliated" journalists credible on any topic on which they are
assigned to write?  Not always.  Or, is an unaffiliated, unnamed source,
always without any merit?  Not always.

Why does Steve suggest, in response to Vin, that any anonymous source would
necessarily spam the list?  This list has been spammed in the past; but did
list members do it?

If a list member wanted to send an anonymous posting to this list, why
couldn't he/she use a hotmail account, and send the message to Steve.
Steve could decide if it warranted forwarding to the list as a whole......
the list would be guarded from spam, but still have the benefit of hearing
unvarnished messages from members who would not have to fear
retribution.....





->  ONLINE-NEWS uses Lyris mailing list software. http://www.lyris.com  <-
-> Change your list settings:  http://www.planetarynews.com/online-news <-
->   Online-News is archived: http://www.planetarynews.com/on-archive   <-
You are subscribed to online-news as: [rballard@access.digex.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this msg to leave-online-news-20155U@clio.lyris.net
SPONSOR: Knight Ridder Real Cities - http://www.realcities.com


From bounce-online-newspapers-17575@clio.lyris.net Wed Jul 29 21:24:57 1998
>From bounce-online-newspapers-17575@clio.lyris.net  Wed Jul 29 21:24:56 1998
Received: from clio.lyris.net (clio.lyris.net [207.90.155.3])
	by pony-1.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA12842
	for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:24:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by clio.lyris.net with Lyris Server version 2.548; 29 Jul 98 18:17:09 PDT7
Received: from indra.com (net.indra.com [204.144.142.1])
	by server.indra.com (8.8.5/) with ESMTP id VAA05086
	for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:01:30 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from chronicle.com (mail.chronicle.com [149.80.1.249])
	by indra.com (8.8.5/Spike-8-1.0) with SMTP id TAA05771
	for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:20:34 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from chron-mail.chronicle.com by chronicle.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA27104; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:16:18 -0400
Received: by chron-mail.chronicle.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1  (569.2 2-6-1998))  id 05256651.000CD592 ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:20:11 -0500
X-Lotus-Fromdomain: CHRONICLE
To: online-newspapers@planetarynews.com
Message-Id: 

Subject: NewsView Connections32 From: xerxes  Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:20:08 -0500
How the Web Was Won
Subject: NewsView Connections32
From: xerxes 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:20:08 -0500

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline