Thanks for the clarification on your policy.

Please take “beating up” in the humorous spirit intended (which I was trying to maintain in all the bullets for a different reason).

I’ve been thinking a lot about what you’ve said abstracting the elements of news. I agree with you in part and disagree in part and I’ve been letting this ferment before blogging. I would, in turn, like to hear more about how you disagree with my scenario.

1. That’s not exactly my policy re interviews. I ask them to ask their questions via email or on their blog, and if I have something to say about it, I’ll write a blog post. If I’ve already written about it, I might send a pointer, or suggest they search my site for references. The key difference is that I try to help, but I don’t get anything out of a phone interview or in person interview, and I’ve decided to start acting in my own self-interest, a unique perspective for a source, relative to the press.

2. I wish you wouldn’t hear “Dave is beating up on me” if I mention you. A lot of people just see the mention of their name as offensive, if it isn’t totally glowing praise. If I disagree with you (and I definitely do) I try to do it in a way as to get through people’s defensive filters, so I go out of my way to edit out the personallity stuff, if it was there to begin with. Jeff, I think your prescription for the news industry isn’t going to help anyone, not the readers (who I identify with of course) or the industry people. It would be great if you’d give my recommendations some thought, and pass them on if you think they merit consideration. That’s all either of us can do.

Even if Jarvis had been piling on, there was no need. Editing—what a “convept.”

Science teaches you critical thinking. Journalism teaches you gullible thinking.

I sat down for just a frickin’ high school film on the Tibet situation last spring and I got snippeted by the little punks (no doubt egged on by their truly Maoist instructors).

That an a odd attitude to giving credit where due and fully citing sources. In the web world it’s not cited until there is a web link. Which is why so few people comment on the telegraph and other sites. With the kind of reach they should enjoy one should expect comments somewhere in the order of two to three hundred comments each post rather than just two to three comments.

I wouldn’t get too exercised about Bill Keller and The NY Times. Or even John Koblin and The NY Observer. The NY Times – and a goodly number of other large metro newspapers – won’t be around in another year or two.

And there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Anybody in the information distribution business (formerly called the ‘news’ business) who can’t see this coming is too stupid to be a ‘journalist.’

Perhaps this is just an all purpose smear term like “fascist” when the commentator doesn’t agree with one’s viewpoint?

Reporters who use meaningless labels, aren’t (reporters, that is).

Moral of the story: Don’t try to bullshit a bullshitter.