Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Anonymous Allegations
From: Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:49:51 +0100

At 19:25 11.03.1998 -0500, Dan Cardish wrote:
>Not a good analogy.  Editors will demand that sources be verified.  The
>sources may be secret, but if the newspaper is worthy, the news that is
>reported will be reliable.  

No, Dan. I may be correct for some stories, depending on the money 
involved (if the person etc goes to a jury), or whether you support
the person etc basically. 

But, in general, news stories are produced completely different.

Usually, you get a rumor about a certain event. Then you call the 
neighbours, asking 'I have heard this and that, can you confirm
it?'. If the person says 'yes (I have heard it also)', you have a
witness. If the person says 'no, but I have heard ...' you have
another aspect _and_ a witness (i.e. Long years neighnour Mr/ 
Mrs X (xx yeras) additionally knows, that ...) . If the person 
says 'no' and hangs up, you call the next - there are enough 
neighbours. Something comes up. Always. Law of great numbers.

Finally, in the end, you ask the "accused" person for a statement.
If the person gives a statement you print it in the last pararaph
of your rumor-story. If the person says 'F*** off' and hangs up,
you write as your last sentence: 'Unfortunately, Mrs/ Mr X didn't 
like to comment the events.'

So, you have a nice story, agree to the law in print media, and 
the paper's selling ciphers go up.

Besides, it works better in Europe, since we have a different law
on regress.

Alf
- --------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm