On Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 08:49 PM, David Honig wrote:
At 10:59 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
That's always an engineer's problem. :)
Tech may be a partial solution. Tim could tape-record the conversation (or, if there were sufficient market demand, conference in a neutral party to do the recording) and damage the reporter's reputation capital by posting the audio clip if he ends up misquoted.
This obviously requires more effort than he appears willing to spend. But some PR flacks do record conversations with journalists for precisely this reason. (Less so damaging reputation capital, more so obtaining a clarification/editor's note if something goes awry.)
-Declan
At 07:20 PM 10/9/01 -0700, David Honig wrote:
Ok. I was trying to use tech to solve a social problem.
Audio recording takes essentially zero resources these days. In Calif, IIRC, he'd have to get permission, but presumably *that's* ok with you reporter-types :-)
No, you're missing the real issue. Having a tape of what was said is meaningless for two main reasons: 1. Selective quoting. Out of a typical interview, the reporter can extract the juiciest quotes, even if misleading and out of context. 2. Enforcement. Having a tape is not very useful. (Declan says some court rulings say that verbal agreements are binding, but this presumes that one would bother to sue, hire the lawyers, and see it through. I know I wouldn't. I'd rather pay $5000 to have a lying journalist whacked than spend a hundred thousand bucks fighting AOL Time Warner or General Electric and, probably, losing.) --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"