Sorry, folks, I thought I'd cc:ed this to the list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 20:08:22 +0059 (EDT) From: Peter F Cassidy <pcassidy@world.std.com> To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> Subject: Re: Modern Journalism (was: All about Bernstein) I agree. Some editors refuse to let actors be engaged as professionals only. My philosophy is people's stories are their own and they are in control of them to the extent they inform these stories. WIRED likes to find crusaders and campaigners for their profiles. Sometimes they're not the swashbuckling types that make for engaging personality pieces. That's why I went for the issues around ITAR and a speculation on the case's merits in relative case law and the judicial environment it will enter. DJB got eloquent where I thought it was important in terms of the technology and research running up against a law that is itself full of negotiable loopholes, quiet on everything else. Most everyone who's met him tells me he's really retiring. Which lead me to conclude the guy might have the kind of reserve and restraint required for protracted litigation with the government which is essentially becomes an endurance contest. Now, saying that, is it weird to think that people would be interested in a fellow like that? Wrong? I've written about large scale bank frauds, organized crime, charities frauds, etc. and even when I'm writing about gangsters, personal detail isn't used for "spice" as much as it is narrative coherence. Who introduced the arsonist to the drug dealer to do the condo deal? Is that gossip or an essential detail? In science writing the personal detail illuminates sometimes, not always, the actors involved in great discovery. Is it prying to learn that Maslow felt better after he married his goofy fourth cousin and came up with theory of the heirarchy of needs? No, but it makes the story of the science more resonant. That's not a bad thing. There is undoubtedly a peoplemagazinification of journalism in the states which is why I gravitate toward the analytic or investigative publications like the Economist, Covert Action Quarterly or the Texas Observer, The Progressive and good trades like CIO. Yet even in these publications, the examination of protagonists is not considered out of bounds. I think it's not in your interest to be sniffing at the press. Tell them exactly what you wrote here and take these guys for a ride. Freeh has managed to make himself out to be this tower of virtue and civil leadership - well, up until recently and, you'll remember, led a successful charge for passage of the digital telephony bill which will be the model for crypto legislation, at least in terms of lobby tactics if not language. He did this partly by force of personality and his credibility. He didn't gain these by being precious about himself or his enterprise or, finally, by being a good cop or jurist. He did it with great PR and a sense of how the press works, not by wingeing when an interview opportunity came around. - Levy, if anything, is doing all cryptodom a favor if average schmucks pick up his book and say, gosh, is *that* what is at stake here? His NYT piece was clear and straightforward - engaged the science of crypto seriously and at the level of the reader could handle - and made the protagonists and antogonists accessible. Right now, crypto is not even on the map. Creating a barricade around the people that are driving this defining technology does no one any good. In fact, when it comes down to the end-game, legislating a ban on non-escrowed crypto, the first thing the Justice department will do is characterize you guys as amoral eggheads who are building technologies to hide the crimes of terrorists, rapists, genocidists and maniacs. At that point, I should think you would like to be appreciated as scientists with principles you act on in daily life and in your work, gosh, even personal philosophies, real personal stuff like that.