In a recent e-mail discussion with Dan Bricklin regarding how the
automatic publishing of e-mails from PR folks was making people
nervous, and how, in the name of getting my job done, the need for
ultimate transparency will have to be balanced against a source's right
to privacy, Bricklin compared the situation to what happens when a
video camera with a blinking red light is unexpectedly thrust into the
face of a source. He makes a great point about offering veto power
before publishing, but how that runs the risk of not getting the
coverage altogether. Here's what he said:
From: Dan Bricklin
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 3:53 PM
To: David Berlind
Subject: Re: media transparency channel, further developed
David,
Good stuff!
In video there is the red light when the camera is rolling which kind
of reminds you. But, that sometimes makes people clam up, like when you
hold a mike in their face. Perhaps the "asking after the fact" thing is
better. Show them what you'll make available and give them veto, but if
they do, then they veto the story and some parts are explicitly not
vetoable (the stuff when the "red light is on"). Things in a public
podcast, for example, are available for transparency and timecodes into
it are always OK like links to a website (or screen captures of
something that was on a website).
The email editing is tough because of the time, but providing it is
making reporting consist of producing more material which is good for
readers. As publishers need less to do (with distribution not needing
all the printing and shipping logistics) there can be more expense on
reporting. :)
DanB
8:34:24 AM 
RadioEdit
|
|
