From: tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 13:51:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Journalistic Questions: Re PZ. [NOISE]
Message-ID: <199601240344.WAA00407@pipe11.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Jan 24, 1996 02:02:41, 'djw@vplus.com (Dan Weinstein)' wrote in response
to a series of questions I asked of Anonymous User over PZ:: 
 
 
> 
>Phil Zimmerman doesn't owe anyone an explaination of his politics. 
> 
 
There are many times and areas where people may "owe" an explanation of
their politics. I strongly suspect, however, that the issue raised by the
German (?) journalist was not likely one of them nor was the original query
by AU. 
 
I was not bothered my AU's desire for accurate information on PZ's
politics. I was bothered my my inference of how AU was going about getting
that information, particulaly given the prejudicial aspects of asking
questions on the topic to the entire cypherpunks list. I did not want to
assume that my inferences of AU's behavior were automatically accurate.
Thus, I posed the questions to AU directly. 
 
Could I have posted the questions to AU in a private message. Yup. Do I
think this would normally have been the proper method? Yup. But I decided
to follow AU's method, particularly since my questions to AU were less
damaging of his reputation than his questions to PZ. In other words, since
AU decided to ask public questions, so would I. 
 
Let me illustrate another way of getting answers to questions where the
issues behind the questions are important but the very questions asked can
be prejudicial. 
 
I was working on a story that involved how the U.S. press treated political
forces behind the large anti-war demonstrations during the Vietnam War.
Part of the reason for the story involved the heavy red-baiting in the
press during the Korean War and immediately after it. The Vietnam War
seemed to be treated in the almost opposite fashion by most of the press.
That is, that real involvement by certain left groups was kept out of the
press. (I ignore here the claims by ignorant rightwing forces with much to
be ignorant about who routinely pronouced "Hanoi Jane" Fonda as *the*
communist antiwar leader.) 
 
My researches indicated that the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist
Party USA played a far greater role in the large national marches than the
daily media credited (or, if you wish, damned) them for. 
 
My researches further led me to conclude that Fred Halstead headed the SWP
anti-war effort and Gil Green headed a similar effort for the CPUSA. 
 
I confirmed the SWP and Halstead, and I confirmed the CPUSA. But I had not
confirmed Gil Green. 
 
How to proceed? 
 
One way was the way that Anonymous User seemed to adopt. I just ask a large
number of different people if Green did. 
 
I was uncomfortable with that method. 
 
First, even suggesting that somebody is a member of the CPUSA tends to
injure their reputation if they are not members. 
 
Second, the people I asked may not have known shit about whether Green was,
or was, not the leader. 
 
So, I did some more research, got Green's home phone number and gave him a
call. 
 
At this point, Green did not owe me shit. He could have easily told me to
"fuck off!" 
 
I told him who I was, what I was researching, why I was researching the
story, and provided enough information for Green to know how I got his home
phone number. 
 
He asked me a few questions that permitted him to get some confirmation of
the material about me I had just spoken about. 
 
Did I owe Green answers to his questions? Under contract law, no. But I
think at some point along the line I had at least *some* obligation
ethically to answer his questions. 
 
In any case, I answered his few questions sufficiently for him to invite me
over to his apartment and I got the information I wanted in the course of
about a two-hour interview. 
 
That I think was a responsible way of getting the answer to my question. It
was responsible to my editor, responsible to my readers, and responsible to
my (potential) source. 
 
I do not think it likely that AU behaved in an equally responsible manner. 
 
But neither had anything to do with what PZ did, or did not, "owe" people. 
-- 
tallpaul 
 
"To understand the probable outcome of the Libertarian vision, see any
cyberpunk B movie wherein thousands of diseased, desparate and starving
families sit around on ratty old couches on the streets watching television
while rich megalomaniacs appropriate their body parts for their personal
physical immortality." 
     R. U. Sirius 
     _The Real Cyberpunk Fakebook_