[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the article, to the contrary, suggests that Tony obtained
the quote about John not cooperating "later" which would explain why
people at the meeting didn't hear it said. The prior reference sounds
like it was taken from the statement he read at the meeting.
Bigger question, for me, is the inappropriateness of a reporter
being involved personally in a story he's covering. I thought that was
contrary to journalist's ethics. (Likewise, I thought it odd if the UC
Review was going to get involved in running community meetings on
UCD.) I'll leave it to the constitutional scholars on the list to
wonder about the intersection of free press and free speech rights in
the First Amendment.
There's nothing inappropriate about it, actually-- so long as the
reporter's interest and biases are known and the reporting is accurate.
Then there's the matter of how "personally involved" one is. Blackwell,
Fenton, Lewis Wendell, and some employees of UCD are, verifiably,
personally involved. Tony's role as a board member of the FoCP puts him
on the outer periphery of "involved," which isn't much more "involved"
than any other resident of UCD. And it doesn't seem to have influenced
his reporting in any substantive way;
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
