[Noisebridge-discuss] Press article (Noisebridge Closing)

[miloh]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

What did the alien say to the anarchist collective?

Take me to your leader.