From: Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 01:05:30 PDT
To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: NYT on Internet Flaws
In-Reply-To: <199510130518.BAA22989@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <199510130700.AA39159@junkers.lochard.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


>> >It was suprisingly weak for a John Markoff story (he usually gets the
>> >details exactly right) but it is an issue that had to be brought up
>> >and I see no reason to call it a bad article overall.
>> 
>> *snort* I've been trying to keep my views to myself on this but claiming
>> Markoff usually gets things right is plain misleading. His articles are as
>> about as one sided as you can get and full of factual inaccuracies. The
>> Mitnik series were a farce and his latest work is reactionary fluff and
>> shows his true lack of understanding of his topics.
>
>He's as close as you are going to get to meeting the journalistic ideal.
>I'm willing to settle for someone who gets the job right nearly all of
>the time.

God help us all.

I am probably biased against the media in general, relying on them to present
a balanced and unbiased by the reporter, editor or media ownership is a tall
task for them. They are too quick to jump into the sensationalist angle and
disregard the overall view and truth.

For cypherpunks to get the proper facts and implications (subjective I guess)
into print, it's usually the case that any communication with the press has
to be very clear, concise, unambiguous and to the point. If you give them any
chance to wander off the rails they will take it and distort your words
according to their agenda. Once that happens it's usually the case the
article is scoffed at for a week or so and then forgotten until it's dragged
up later as someones point for whatever they want to support in their
discussion.

If there are good articles out there then it's usually the case the reporter
actually went and took the time to investigate their subject matter and
gather all points of view and to verify as many facts as they can. You say
Markoff does this, I dont agree he does. Then the editor has to keep their
big red pen out of it enought so the message isn't distorted. This doesnt
occur often IMHO. You're better off purchasing space in the paper yourself
and getting it said your way.

It's because of this dilema that a lot of the people I communicate with, and
who have the information people should know, choose to avoid and shun any
media contact. They dont want to be linked with some lame ass report.

Cheers,
Mark
mark@lochard.com.au
The above opinions are rumoured to be mine.