[First in a series of "Rewriting the rules of journalism" posts, in which we will make bold assertions that our way is better, and then come back later on and retract them after running up against reality.]
Assertion:
When you're doing an interview, or otherwise requesting or providing information, the best medium for doing it, hands down, is text. This is for three reasons:
1. Those of us whose mouths are not firmly attached to our brains will be able to say what we mean to say, rather than whatever happened to escape this time;
2. We have some time for reflection, to decide exactly what it is that we mean to say;
3. The end product is a perfect record of the entirety of the communication.
By this I mean two things: I have a perfect record, since I can review it; and anyone else also has a perfect record, since they see exactly what was communicated. In contrast, face-to-face or phone conversations involve sending and receiving visual and auditory signals galore, any of which can completely change the meaning of the communication in a way that doesn't come across even if we were to type it out verbatim.
So, if I want you, the reader of my weblog, to know exactly what I think I know and how I know it (so you can judge for yourself), I should publish the email exchanges.
But there's an immediate, strong "invasion of privacy!" feel to doing anything of the sort; and if the other person didn't plan for the exchange to be public, it's just plain unfair.
My general rule of thumb on publishing emails - an unwritten rule until now, just based on what seems fair - seems to be this:
If it's out of the bounds of civilized discourse, and one of the parties has given permission, it can get printed. If it's so far inside the bounds as to be innocuous, ... not sure. I think I ask, just as I do if it's somewhere in between.
But what about a case (hypothetical, so far) where the emails are necessary to tell the whole story, but permission is not granted? I guess we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.
But first we'll try to find another route.[edited]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.