From: dmandl@bear.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 06:18:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Siegel and Lewis
Message-ID: <9501041417.AA08643@yeti.bsnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: <raph@netcom.com>
> 
>    I just got off the phone with Peter Lewis, reporter for the New
> York Times. He is unaware of any grand consipracy to regulate the Net,
> but then again if there was one, I don't think they'd tell him.
> 
>    His piece that ran Saturday was badly mangled by the editorial
> process, especially since it ran on page one. Those articles get to be
> mangled by a whole new set of people who otherwise wouldn't get to
> touch it. I think Lewis has basically good intentions, and does do his
> homework before writing a story.

I have a good friend who writes for the Times.  Last time I spoke to
him, he was frantically trying to get in touch with the Business editor
because a piece he'd just written had been hacked to bits, with several
inaccuracies introduced.  He probably couldn't reach the guy, and I bet
the mutilated version got printed (I don't know for sure, since I don't
read the Times).  This is standard.

It's almost a rule that whenever there's a story on a subject you're
familiar with there'll be major inaccuracies.  So what does that say
about all the others?

>    Yecchh. Now I know why I don't rely on daily newspapers for my news

Well, that's one reason, anyway...

   --Dave.