From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 05:41:33 PDT
To: Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
Subject: Re: The Economist on Netscape "hackers"
In-Reply-To: <199510130705.AA35603@junkers.lochard.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9510130804.A15602-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Mark wrote:

> Hacker good. Cracker bad. Media distort hacker to bad. Media hype merchants.
> Media bad. Bad ol' Media. Degauss. Reformat.
> 
> >Raph (who's wondering if there's something inherent in the media
> >process that keeps them from getting their stories straight)
> 
> Reporters. Editors. Owners.
I'd say there's a nice market right now for people on this list to freelance
some accurate security and crypto articles out to the traditional media.
(accurate meaning your own personal bias)

While a nobody like me isn't going to get published in Time, I don't see 
why, oh, let's say a Kevin Kelly or a Steven Levy couldn't. Besides, there's
still an opening for all the rest of us to get published in the various 
computer trades and net mags. I'm positive *some* take freelancers.

If a lot of you get quoted and even interviewed in the bad ol' media,
and you actually care about getting the story right, why not write your 
own press releases and articles?

If you just managed the next netscape crack, release the crack and an 
export control critique together. You might even make some money out of it. 
In their rush to print, editors would rather have first hand info asap than 
their half-competent journalist's misunderstanding of it tomorrow. 

It's better than working for t-shirts. (Yes, I'm sure they're nice, Sameer)

If you want accurate press, you have to write it.
(Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have ever been a journalist, so I really 
don't have a lousy clue if I'm right)