|
Grex > Coop6 > #12: The Observer bashing item for Coop 6 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scg
|
|
The Observer bashing item for Coop 6
| 
Sep 24 17:32 UTC 1994 |
Since the discussion of the Ann Arbor Observer's treatement of
Grex was in the old Coop conference, I guess I should start a new item for
this.
The Observer has now come out with their "retraction", if it could
be called that, as well as printing Valerie's letter. I think they got
the letter pretty much as written, but the retraction falls far short of
what was promised.
"Our brief Inside Ann Arbor item looked soley at the question of
why computer users in other states and countries would log onto the
Internet via Ann Arbor. The answer we gave is the one we were given at
the time by a Cyberspace staff member."
|
| 35 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 1 of 35:
|
Sep 24 17:36 UTC 1994 |
Yeah, right.
BOYCOTT!!!!!!!
(Then again, a boycott by me is meaningless, since I can't
afford most of the stuff they advertise. >8)
|
steve
|
|
response 2 of 35:
|
Sep 24 18:02 UTC 1994 |
I think its time for more letters. I am really mad.
|
robh
|
|
response 3 of 35:
|
Sep 24 18:15 UTC 1994 |
Maybe we can have a big contest, "Which Grex user is the angriest
about this?" I know I'm beside myself right now...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 35:
|
Sep 24 19:29 UTC 1994 |
I'd like to know who appended that snotty dig. Jill seemed honestly
apologetic, in the discussion of the article. So, what happened to
the sense of apology within their editorial board?
|
carson
|
|
response 5 of 35:
|
Sep 24 22:05 UTC 1994 |
"remember, keep your sense of humor... it's supposed to become funny
after a while..."
|
popcorn
|
|
response 6 of 35:
|
Sep 24 22:37 UTC 1994 |
I thought it was pretty funny, honestly. Especially (with apologies
to the people who did it) the people who were alternately yelling
"BOYCOTT" and running over to Webster's books to buy an Observer at
the first possible chance.
|
kentn
|
|
response 7 of 35:
|
Sep 25 00:37 UTC 1994 |
The Observer is not a professionally operated publication. We know
that for sure now.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 8 of 35:
|
Sep 25 01:32 UTC 1994 |
Right. The item printed doesn't adequately explain the context the rather
bizarre pout-of-a-statement is made in. What's an unclued reader supposed
to think? It's a liar's gambit of compounding fudge.
|
sarrica
|
|
response 9 of 35:
|
Sep 25 10:58 UTC 1994 |
Yeah, I think the Observer has something here. I login from New York
to get porn files even though I walk through the XXX-rated area around
Times Square every day-- NOT!
|
danr
|
|
response 10 of 35:
|
Sep 25 18:20 UTC 1994 |
They printed our letter. I'd say just ignore them.
|
pegasus
|
|
response 11 of 35:
|
Sep 25 19:04 UTC 1994 |
Did anyone else notice the other letters complaining of inaccuracies in
other articles last issue? It seems to be a general pattern, and they
don't apologize for it at all.
Pattie
|
orinoco
|
|
response 12 of 35:
|
Sep 27 22:55 UTC 1994 |
I just logged on to complain myself, when I saw one already going.
Beat me to it, remmers...
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 35:
|
Sep 28 13:34 UTC 1994 |
Huh? Where do I come into this? I didn't enter this item and hadn't
respond to it, nor has the other Remmers.
|
carson
|
|
response 14 of 35:
|
Sep 28 13:37 UTC 1994 |
orinoco is a student, i.e., he can't read. ;)
|
jep
|
|
response 15 of 35:
|
Sep 28 21:49 UTC 1994 |
I don't read the Observer, unless I know there's something worthwhile
to read in it. What happened?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 16 of 35:
|
Sep 28 22:22 UTC 1994 |
They printed a short article about Grex last month. It said that
people from all over the world log in to Grex for its on-line porn.
Grexies were incensed. We wrote a letter to them, which they published
along with an editorial note "explaining" their article.
There should be some additional info in the oldcoop conference if
you're interested.
|
carson
|
|
response 17 of 35:
|
Sep 29 00:21 UTC 1994 |
which oldcoop? there are threee on-line, and I assume one is this one. ;)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 18 of 35:
|
Sep 29 03:05 UTC 1994 |
coop5. The one that "j oldcoop" currently puts you into.
|
jep
|
|
response 19 of 35:
|
Sep 29 06:08 UTC 1994 |
I read the item in oldcoop, and re-read this item... wow. What a
terrible article.
I noticed that the author said the editors reorganized things a
little, emphasizing things she didn't wish to emphasize, and setting a
different tone to the article than she had intended. I noticed she didn't
say she didn't write any part of the article. It is my belief that she
wrote it all. It is hard to see how a little reorganization would turn
that article into anything accurate in any way. I doubt the editors of
the Observer have any motivation for revising the basic intent of an
article on their own without any consultation with anyone, particularly
without consultation from the person who did the research and the original
story.
Reporters get assignments, or come up with story ideas, do as much
research as they think they need, write about the part(s) they think will
be most interesting to their readers, and submit their work, then go on to
the next assignment or story idea. That's how we did it at the college
newspaper I wrote for (the Michigan Tech LODE), and I assume that most
professional newspaper reporters do the same. With the deadlines they
must meet, and the fierce competition to survive in the world of
journalism, there isn't time for much else.
Editors revise them for content when they can, for readability, and
for newsworthiness; only a nitwit would, without any knowledge of his own,
revise a reasonable article into such a sensationalist piece of trash. A
nitwit editor might take a real article and ask for "more juice", and get
the writer to revise it. He might pressure the writer into
sensationalizing a reasonable article. He could easily then call the
writer onto the carpet for inaccuracies, forcing the writer to defend the
published piece at risk of losing his credibility and his job.
Whatever, Grex was the victim of some very sloppy, damaging
journalism. You have every reason to be angry. I'm not even a regular
user of Grex, due to other commitments; but I am angry at what has been
done to Grex. I'll try to piece together a letter myself.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 20 of 35:
|
Sep 29 06:55 UTC 1994 |
A footnote to what jep says is the "Time" style of writing/editing,
wherein a group of writers submit research, quotes, & sections. Then
another group of lead writers and editors massage what was submitted. Of
course most news organizations can't function that way and work instead
along the traditional model. But the Observer article does have that
peculiar fish/fowl quality.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 21 of 35:
|
Sep 29 13:32 UTC 1994 |
Re 19: Ja. The author of the article said the Observer added the headline
and put quotes around the words "bulletin board" in the article, making it
"much more salacious than she'd ever intended". Someone else said the
Observer also added the paragraph on the end about whatsis magazine. But
that still leaves things like the sentences that say stuff like "Why do
people log in to Grex? S-E-X." I'd guess Jill wrote that part herself.
|
kentn
|
|
response 22 of 35:
|
Sep 29 15:51 UTC 1994 |
I don't want to knock the publicity committee here at Grex because
they've been doing a wonderful job at publicizing Grex in a good way...
but...(you knew it was coming ;)...is there something we can do to
head off this Observer-type article *before* it's written? Maybe
some follow up phone calls after the press kits were sent out (we did
send out press kits?). If the editors know more about us, perhaps
they'd be less tempted to let this type of article go by, or less
tempted to make it more sensational. [Just some off-the-cuff thoughts;
I hope no-one takes offense].
|
carson
|
|
response 23 of 35:
|
Sep 29 18:46 UTC 1994 |
we could burn the Bill of Rights, revert to a police state....
oh, you probably mean *reasonable* things.
|
steve
|
|
response 24 of 35:
|
Sep 29 23:41 UTC 1994 |
Other than knowing them personally and getting advance copies
of the articles, I don't know how.
|