Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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