[Noisebridge-discuss] Press article (Noisebridge Closing)

[Danny O'Brien]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, aestetix aestetix <aestetix at gmail.com> wrote:
> My problem with the article is not that information was misleading or
> error-prone, as I myself didn't know our financial situation until we saw
> the email today from Kelly. My problem is that we did not receive a single
> email about this to press at noisebridge.net, which means that the article
> likely resulted from the banter on the mailing list. I have since contacted
> the organization asking how they vetted their information to clear up any
> miscommunication.
>
> Note to people: proper journalism involves contacting your source and
> verifying that the information you're about to post is correct, otherwise
> it's really hearsay at best. Even if it seems logical and reasonable, having
> a direct source that can back up your words is usually a good practice.
> Otherwise you're simply spreading rumors.

Guys, it's not "proper journalism", it's a group blog run by some
people who used to blog for Mission Mission. Do you triple-check
everything you email or twitter or blog?

Actually, we all  should, but I'm pretty sure we don't, and I
certainly wouldn't be upset if you wrote something slightly wrong
about NB on your blog, and didn't email press@, especially if it was
based on an email from an authoritative person like Shannon sent to
nb-announce and nb-discuss. Actually I'm still basing a lot of what I
think on that email. Apart from finding the treasure in the PayPal
account, is any of it wrong? Shannon?

Also, with an actual journalisty hat *and* Noisebridge member hat on,
I have to say that emailing press at noisebridge.net would be fairly low
down on my list of ways of checking this story out, even if I was
committing journalism.

I don't think you should or can expect journalists to email press@ if
they're already speaking to or hearing from other people "close to
Noisebridge".  My feeling is that press at noisebridge.net is for initial
contacts, not for some "official" position. That's based on both my
sense of Noisebridge -- in that no-one speaks in an official capacity
for Noisebridge; and in practical terms, as regards what journalists
actually do. You really don't often email or talk to the "official'
press address very often, because at best it's there to put you in
touch with the right person, and at worst it's there to run
interference. I agree that if I was writing this piece as a
journalist, I'd have written to shannon, treasurer@ and probably read
the rest of the nb-discuss thread and thus got the update from Kelly,
but I'd have got there using Google, not by emailing press at .

You should be upset if journalists get facts wrong, not worried that
they didn't email the  press@ address.

d.

>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Sai <noisebridge at saizai.com> wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong with the article? AFAICT it is completely factual AND
>> positive, which is more than we can expect normally.
>>
>> Is it that you think stuff that happens on list ought to be secret?
>>
>> - Sai
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>