Dont Quote Me - All Comments

re: BoMag's outsider problem

Luciano — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:08:39 GMT

Yikes Terry, maybe it's time to let that one go. It has been like 20 years.

re: BoMag's outsider problem

wah? — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:21:35 GMT

Did you just give yourself a third-person sign-off line in a blog comment box? Old media meets new, indeed.

re: BoMag's outsider problem

Terry Ann Knopf — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:11:59 GMT

Hi Adam,

Re: BoMag's Outsider Problem. I couldn’t agree with more with you.

Indeed, I had my own negative experience with this sassy and once-relevant magazine. In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, I was a contributing editor to the magazine, basically functioning as its media critic.

In addition to my day job as TV critic for The Patriot Ledger, I thoroughly enjoyed my association with the magazine. Kenny Hartnett, David Rosenbaum and John Strahanich were the savvy editors I was privileged to work with; and these guys really knew this town inside out.

But with the magazine perpetually in turmoil, the powers-that be eventually hired a new editor—Mike So-and So—from Cleveland. [I honestly can’t remember his name.] Despite my five-year track record, Mike sat on a newsworthy piece I had just written about John Hart, the brilliant, enigmatic anchor of "World Monitor," the national newscast out of Boston that ran on the Discovery Channel, but was owned by the Christian Science Church here in Boston.

Angered by his concern that the Church was intruding into his newscast, in violation of its own written policy, Hart was giving serious thought to resigning.

It was the kind of meaty story that journalists like myself thrived on. Hart had been a distinguished correspondent for “The CBS Evening News” and the “NBC’s Nightly News." And the fact that the Church may have interfered with World Monitor’s news coverage of the infamous Twitchell case made this a potentially big news story.

David and Ginger Twitchell were the Christian Science couple from Massachusetts who relied on prayer rather than on doctors as their young son died of a bowel obstruction. The court case drew national attention when the two were convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Unfortunately, Mike from Cleveland was new to the city, was unfamiliar with my work and, for all I knew, may not even have been aware that the Christian Science Church was located next to the offices of Boston Magazine. And so, the editor simply sat on the story.

Several months went by. Knowing that John Hart was close to resigning and that the story would not hold much longer, I finally approached the Globe Magazine editor Ande Zellman and told her about my dilemma. Ande gave the article a quick read while I was in her office, then looked up and said simpy “I want it.”

I immediately withdrew the piece from Boston Magazine, and the piece ran shortly thereafter in The Globe Magazine. John Hart resigned the same week; and the Globe Magazine story not only made news in the Boston, but was also picked up by The Washington Post, USA Today and other papers around the country.

I never did another piece for Boston Magazine, and within a year or two Mike from Cleveland was gone—presumably headed back to Cleveland.

Terry Ann Knopf teaches courses in Arts Criticism and Media Criticism in Boston University’s Journalism Department.

re: Metro's long, strange vacation

Adam Reilly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:53:09 GMT

Good insight, Greg. Thanks.

re: Metro's long, strange vacation

Greg Reibman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:47 GMT

Just guessing here Adam, but I suspect it's because for most dailies Thursdays and Fridays are pretty good days for advertising, while the early days of the week aren't.

re: Defending Wikipedia (and the NYT)

Adam Reilly — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:36:35 GMT

Jimmy: perhaps "successfully pressured" was a poor choice of words. I was attempting to paraphrase this part of Richard Perez-Pena's article:

"Around that time, Catherine J. Mathis, the chief spokeswoman for the New York Times Company, called Mr. Wales and asked for his help. Knowing that his own actions on Wikipedia draw attention, Mr. Wales turned to an administrator, one of several who would eventually become involved in monitoring and controlling the page.

"On Nov. 13, news of the kidnapping was posted and deleted four times within four hours, before an administrator blocked any more changes for three days. On Nov. 16, it was blocked again, for two weeks."

So--would you be amenable to "sought and received Wikipedia's cooperation"? I'll make the change above, and reference both the original wording and your objection.

Also, I didn't say that Wikipedia broke any of its rules, as you suggest in your comment. I said Wikipedia constrained the freedom of some of its users. That seems accurate to me, since you (i.e., Wikipedia) seem to have made a concerted effort to delete information you knew to be true. (Presumably Mathis's phone call established that Rohde had, in fact, been kidnapped.) If I'm wrong, feel free to explain why. And thanks for weighing in.

re: Defending Wikipedia (and the NYT)

Jimmy Wales — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:08:25 GMT

It is not accurate at all to say either that the New York Times pressured me - there was no pressure of any kind, what pressure could they possibly exert on me?

Nor did anyone bend or break any rules of Wikipedia - we have very strict rules about reliable sourcing and biographies of living persons, and we enforced those standards.

re: More thoughts on the NYT's Rohde cover-up

GuyfromNH — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:36:46 GMT

Adam,

I'd be more understanding of the Times' position as well except for two specific cases where they put individuals in harm's way for the sake of a story... and not in a global, releasing-government-secrets-balanced-against-people's-right-to-know deal...

The first is when they identified, *by name*, a CIA officer involved in the interrogation of terrorism suspects. There was never any accusation that this officer had done anything illegal or even remotely approaching torture. He did his job in a professional, humane way, and got good intelligence, but the Times outed him, exposing he and his family to danger. Where was the need there for the Times to specifically name him?

The second is during the Obama-McCain campaign, when the Times identified one of McCain's sons as an active duty Marine officer, who had served in Iraq and who might be returning to duty there... and despite the strong pleadings from the McCains that their son -- who was not involved in the campaign -- be left alone, again, the Times outed him. And a quick Google search later, any terrorist could have McCain's son's photograph... again, the Times placed him in severe danger, and for what purpose or value?

So when the Times pleads for special understanding to protect one of their own... I understand it, but I understand the rank hypocrisy even better.

re: NYT Co: Globe could still close

Dzqhqdfq — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:06:18 GMT

HPDOn9 comment5 ,

re: Globe layoffs: the latest

payday loans — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:38:22 GMT

I found thephoenix.com very informative. The article is professionally written and I feel like the author knows the subject very well. thephoenix.com keep it that way.

Is the Times Guilty of Wiki-pediment? « Campaign Outsider

Is the Times Guilty of Wiki-pediment? « Campaign Outsider — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:42:31 GMT

Pingback from Is the Times Guilty of Wiki-pediment? « Campaign Outsider

re: KG's darker side

whoisciaradating — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:33:22 GMT

According to Bow Wow's 106 & Park interview, he and Ciara are history and I think <a href=world66.com/.../whoisciaradating>who is ciara dating</a> that she may have been the one to end things because he seemed a little bitter about it. I don't know who she is dating now. That photo of her on Nelly's bedside on that Over and Over Again video did cause me to think of the possibility of a relationship between Nelly & Ciara but it was after that that she went public with her relationship with Bow Wow. Yesterday on 106 & Park, Lil Fizz (formerly of B2K) hinted that he would be interested in dating Ciara. Rocsi was sure to call him out on that. Ciara is probably weighing her options and playing it cool right now. She may not be dating anyone.

re: More thoughts on the NYT's Rohde cover-up

tallape — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:02:10 GMT

Unquestionably, yes, the Times was right on this one (as was Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation).

(Okay, questionably, but still.)

In the wiretapping case (and any number of similar cases through the years), there's a harm involved. To the Constitution, to principles that this country has said that it holds dear, and so on.

In the case of David Rohde, there was only one harm involved: the potential harm to the individual. That makes it, in my view, a no-brainer.

The obvious response is that there's a harm here to the First Amendment. But freedom of the press doesn't mean that the press has to publish every piece of information that it has; it means that press is free to publish information if it chooses to. And if others decide that the reason they're given not to publish is compelling, they don't need to do so either.

Journalism is a competitive industry; if there were a threat to the First Amendment, someone would have had this story on the front page months ago.

re: Defending Wikipedia (and the NYT)

John Doe — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:54:15 GMT

Why are we to believe that the NYTimes was acting in Rohde's best interest? Because they say so? Aren't they the same people engineering the coverup? Couldn't they be covering for some kind of legal liability they might have?

Beyond that, I'd like to know where I can get my "stories that might kill you will not be published" pass. I'd send mine to George Tiller. Oh wait, I guess late-term abortions are more in the public interest than ongoing kidnappings in Afganistan, right?

Was Wikipedia correct to censor news of David Rohde’s capture? | csmonitor.com

Was Wikipedia correct to censor news of David Rohde’s capture? | csmonitor.com — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:13:07 GMT

Pingback from Was Wikipedia correct to censor news of David Rohde’s capture? | csmonitor.com