cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-16 - Re: Declan as a Budding Washington Insider

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 163d2b2e42943b85d7d6b93bdc1ba492ffc3ee5c3dc9a9f4fde0c1d6a6c46ac5
Message ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970615232644.25854A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
Reply To: <v03102801afca23e96bf3@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-16 04:24:02 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 12:24:02 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 12:24:02 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Declan as a Budding Washington Insider
In-Reply-To: <v03102801afca23e96bf3@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970615232644.25854A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim is right to raise these points. In fact I've talked about "DC
insiderism" with him and here on the list in the past.

But Tim's conclusions are way off-target. Just because you have access to
information doesn't mean you've been co-opted. For instance, contrary to
what Tim says, I've never "promised to spin the story in a certain way."
That's the job of a PR flack, not a journalist. Also, contrary to what Tim
says, I've never been "sworn to secrecy." Rather, some discussions are
off-the-record, which is fairly common practice even if you're covering
City Hall in Topeka. Doesn't mean I can't use the information -- as I said
in the paragraph Tim elided, I do -- just that I can't quote a particular
person.

Tim writes: But you're sure showing all the signs of becoming just another
Washington Insider."

In truth I'm doing what a reporter should do: talk to lots of folks who
are involved in a particular issue. If this makes me an "insider," I'll
cop to that. But if I didn't meet and chat with thse folks, I wouldn't be
doing my job.

I mean, geez, if nothing else, look at what I've been writing. Last
Thursday I wrote about how the Federal government should get out of the
business of "protecting privacy." On Friday I wrote about how "protecting
children" from animated cartoon images is another pretext for
Net-censorship. Who else is saying that?

If anything, I've becoming more cynical as I spend more time on this beat.

-Declan

Thread