--- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], > "authfriend" > > > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter > > > <drpetersutphen@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- nablusos108 <nablusos108@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Agreed. My point is only that it is not > much > > > of a > > > > > > big deal. This > > > > > > fellow makes a small mistake in his > eagerness > > > and > > > > > > them he apologies. > > > > > > Why all this agitation over a small thing > ? > > > > > > > > > > Journalistic ethics. You can't change > writing, > > > in this > > > > > context, without indicating that a change > has > > > been > > > > > made and noting your change from the > original > > > work. > > > > > Its so the reader knows who wrote what. In > this > > > case > > > > > the TMO did not like something about the > > > original > > > > > piece and changed it without noting they had > > > changed > > > > > it. If you make a change in someone elses > > > writing and > > > > > then present the writing as if the change > has > > > not > > > > > been made, that is manipulation. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure "manipulation" is the correct > term, > > > but > > > > the rest is spot-on, and not just for > journalists. > > > > It's in the same general category of ethical > > > lapses > > > > as plagiarism. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, nablusos is correct that > the > > > changes > > > > were cosmetic, not substantive, so it's really > > > just > > > > the principle of the thing in this particular > > > case. > > > > But if that principle wasn't observed here, > you > > > can't > > > > have confidence that it would be observed with > > > regard > > > > to changes that *were* substantive in other > > > pieces, past > > > > or future. > > > > > > > > So it's most definitely Not a Good Thing. And > > > from > > > > what Roth has been quoted as saying, it > appears he > > > > hasn't grasped what the problem is. > > > > > > > > > > INSULAR group of people. The same thing happend > with > > > JAMA and Chopra. It wouldn't > > > have killed them to properly fill out the form, > and > > > they actually were NOT trying to hide > > > anything, as far as I can tell, since their > original > > > cover letter specifically said that they were > > > consulting for MAPI. When I pointed out to > someone > > > (might have been ROth, might have > > > been someone else) that they should have been > > > EXTREMELY careful in filling out their > > > forms because of the hostile environment they > were > > > publishing in, the response was that > > > had they known how hostile it really was, they > > > simply wouldn't have tried to publish in the > > > first place. > > > > No Sparaig, you appear to be the insular one here. > > Professionals are very, very careful regarding who > > wrote what and when they wrote it. As Judy and > > Nabolous point out the change by Roth was trivial, > but > > it is the principle of the act. If you contacted > the > > writer of the original story she/he would be > furious > > that his/her story was changed without such > changes > > being noted. By the way, what is the Chopra thing > > you're talking about? It wasn't clear to me. > > You missed my point. The MUM people are very insular > and manage to convince > themselves that nothing bad will ever happen to them > when they ignore the accepted way > of doing things. And the Chopra thing was the "JAMA > Caper" when CHopra, Sharma and > Triguna submitted a paper on Maharishi Ayurveda to > JAMA without filling out their author- > affiliation form, and JAMA suddenly "discovered" > that they were affiliated with the > organization they were writing about even though the > original cover letter had explicitly > stated that they were affiliated: Sorry man! I get your point now. > > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/mavletter.jpg > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/mavletter2.jpg > > JAMA then published a 6 page expose detailing how > awful the TM folk were, in response to > the 3 page paper JAMA had "inadvertently" > published. JAMA's expose has been available > for years on the web, but the original that prompted > the expose has not been. Willytex has > made it available at least for a while, on his > website, however. > > http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/jama.htm > > JAMA's response, curtesy of Andrew Skolnick: > > http://web.archive.org/web/20000308180136/nasw.org/users/ASkolnick/mav.html > > Andrew Skolnick's Judy Stein Worship site: > > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ > > with an occassional guest appearance by moi: > > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/enlightenedHitler.htm > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/mantra.htm > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
