Judith Borger Yates wrote: > > Statements posted on the forum are public, the same > > as if they were said > > standing on a street corner. Reporting them in the > > newspaper is no different > > from reporting what someone said at a public > > gathering.
I agree in principle with this statement, but there are some practical aspects that bear noting, and that involves context. Just so I'm not misintrepreted, I believe this list is obviously intended as a public forum open to all to participate (within list rule boundaries) and open to the press to peruse and use if it deems it appropriate. As a practicality, however, this forum does not equate exactly with a public gathering, where context and credibility can generally be judged by observation. Thus, for example, Dee Long made a statement on the list recently that she intended as tongue in cheek, but it was misinterpreted as otherwise. This may not have occurred in a public gathering or meeting. That's the central limitation of on-line discussions and e-mail--contextual issues such as sarcasm and other more subtle communications are much harder to judge without the ability also to observe the speaker. The fact that we are having this discussion is an example--Eric feels that he has to further explain his initial post, and I feel that folks interpreted my earlier statements to endorse a more restricted view of the public nature of the list. I think we both believe that courtesy is the issue--whether press should at least notify a member that the post may be used in the newspaper. No requirement of courtesy, but intuitively it makes sense to me, and especially so if the context of the written comments are in any way unclear. Finally, I went to Ms. Borger Yates's story that initiated this thread, and--contrary to the impression of simply quoting list members-- she used the list and its posts within context. Here's how she set it up: ***A note on Samuels' campaign literature notes that it's "printed by a minority-owned Third Ward business." That choice sparked a blistering, several-day debate in an online city forum where several writers complained that Samuels had not used a union printer.*** What followed were the quotes from Eric and from other unidentified list members, with the reporter noting that the quotes were written on the list. The quotes made sense, were given in context, and were not quoted as if Eric had spoken directly to the reporter. Seems fair and appropriate to me. On the other hand, I think it would be unprofessional (but certainly not illegal) for a reporter to quote someone from the list without also stating in the article that it was written and posted on an e-mail list. Gregory Luce St. Paul TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
