Re: [Leica] Squares and sabotage

[Eric Welch <ewelch@neteze.com>]

At 11:56 AM 11/26/1999 -0500, Ruralmopics@aol.com wrote:
>Beyond that, I suppose it would seem arrogant and perhaps a bit foolish to
>say I think that Rural Missouri's accuracy check policy is the correct one
>and the New York TImes, et al, are incorrect. But it's true, I do. I've never
>done it, of course, (he says with a tone of self-right indignation) but my
>co-workers have faxed a story to someone and discovered that they were
>spelling the guy's name wrong or that it was really Bill and not Bob. Reading
>someone the quotes probably wouldn't catch those.

Good for you, Bob. But that's just plain sloppy journalism to start with. 
If they can't get the name right,when they work on the deadlines that 
Missouri Ruralist does, maybe they need to find another line of work. The 
only mistakes that should slip through to the level where the story is done 
should be simple misunderstandings of what the subject said. That can 
easily be checked by reading them quotes and telling them the major points 
of the story and having them respond to that. There is a fine line that 
journalists should not cross. Not because they're better than anyone else 
(though in getting names spelled right should be one place where they are 
flawless - like you!) but because they have to protect the process. And one 
of those protections is avoiding prior-restraint.

Missouri Ruralist is not an investigative journalistic bastion. They do PR 
work for rural electric cooperatives. And I must say, a pretty darn good 
job of it, and quite open-minded considering the stories you guys do. 
Photographers at the New-Press have borrowed story ideas from you guys more 
than once. That's a good thing, don't get me wrong.

But you guys should do what you are doing. Because you don't really have 
the same protection, I suspect, that newspapers do. It would be much easier 
to sue, since there is a commercial angle to what you do. Or am I wrong on 
that point? Hey, I'm no longer in newspapers either. The courses that I 
photo edit are mostly in support of the gem industry.

And then there's the concern for the subject. More than once I've wanted to 
show people pictures, but it puts them in an uncomfortable position of 
passing judgement on what I've chosen to use, and possibly cause them to 
want to change it. A story is not only from the subject's point of view. 
It's also from my point of view, which they might not see eye-to-eye on, 
but nonetheless is legitimate. That's my job. To have an outsider's point 
of view. To think otherwise is fooling one's self.

Eric Welch
Carlsbad, CA

http://www.neteze.com/ewelch

Those who judge others will burn in Hell!