jmc@Gang-of-Four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) (12/10/90)
Joe Abernathy of the Houston Chronicle exaggerates distressingly often.
las@wnss (root) (12/10/90)
cs.utexas.edu!balkan!dogface!bei (Bob Izenberg) writes: > - see previous post - We're in headline territory here, so we > shouldn't expect figures to mean anything. > I hassled a friend in the news business about this last night (a > poor repayment for his letting me hang out for a newscast.) Why do some > reporters let officials write their stories for them? My friend put it > down to deadline pressure, which I can surely believe. But, having been > on both sides of the good-natured (?) ribbing broadcast journalists take > for doing superficial treatment of news stories, I don't have much > sympathy for a print reporter (even in a daily) who doesn't ask a few more > questions than were asked here. To Joe Abernathy (the Chronicle reporter) > and to the AP reporter, I must say that I'm still waiting for the facts. > -- Bob Being the producer Bob teased, I wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth into the mix. Generally the people on Usenet are very interested in thier industry/profession/hobby/vocation. And any story regarding their i/p/h/v is GUARENTEED to bring about some sort of emotion. In my profession, we get phone calls, letters, and personal visits from all sorts of people who are either very upset, or quite pleased with our coverage of a given issue. Such is the case of the articles Joe Abnerthy, and countless other reporters have authored or aired. I'd hope I'm speaking for my whole profession, but I'll have to limit it to myself and the individuals I work with. As journalists, we do try to check our facts as completely as possible. But often, we're called upon to make judgement calls, determining whether the pressure of a deadline is more or less important than taking at face value the information given us by a "usually reliable source or informant". And that's the problem with journalism. The reading/viewing public expects perfection, and absolute accuracy. But as objective viewers of a given event, we're occasionally prone to make mistakes. I don't have the figures at home with me, but a majority of the American public gets most of it's news from Television. That's wrong. (I may be flamed by my contemporaries for saying that but ... :-)) The best informed individuals are those who expose themselves to the widest variety of news sources possible. And then, that person must weigh the information they've obtained, and make their own decisions. Textbooks have been wrong. Newspapers have been wrong. Radio and television newscasts have been wrong. But for the most part, the information we present is accurate. But to believe EVERYTHING a person reads or sees from one source of media, well, that's wrong too. So before you flame some unknown AP writer, or Joe Abernathy, or whoever, weigh the information you have access to from print and broadcast, and reach your own conclusions. Perhaps as electronic communication matures and becomes available to the masses, when the free exchange of ideas and information becomes common-place, confussion over individual points can be avoided and the "whole" can be considered. Flames, of course, to /dev/null. But I will do my best to continue this thread, either on the net or by mail. PS - Bob - Hope you enjoyed the broadcast. It was a deadline sort of a night wasn't it! Lance (Remember, It's ONLY Television!) Spangler [...] cs.utexas.edu!dogface!wnss!las Damn fine coffee Norma! Uh, that is you isn't it Norma? ALL OBLIGATORY QUOTES, DISCLAIMERS, AND OTHER MEANINGLESS DRIVEL APPLIES!
john@mintaka.mlb.semi.harris.com (John M. Blasik) (12/13/90)
In article <1m5XT1w163w@wnss> las@wnss (root) writes: > I'd hope I'm speaking for my whole profession, but I'll have to >limit it to myself and the individuals I work with. As journalists, we >do try to check our facts as completely as possible. But often, we're >called upon to make judgement calls, determining whether the pressure >of a deadline is more or less important than taking at face value the >information given us by a "usually reliable source or informant". But what about editors? Our local rag carried the AP story before NASA responded to the outrageous dollar amount of the loss. They didn't run a follow-up. -- john
jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) (12/13/90)
In article <BcuVT2w163w@dogface> writes: > > HOUSTON (AP) -- Computer hackers have pilfered $12 > million in telephone charges from the Johnson Space Center > over the past two years in what at least one expert said was > the biggest such theft in the nation. ... > Black and Gail Thackeray, an assistant Arizona attorney > general and an expert in telecommunications, said such > penetrations typically cost from $100,000 a month for a small > company to $500,000 per month at a large firm. ... and since NASA is a "large firm", they must have lost $500,000/month for the past two years, thus yielding $12 million. Brilliant logic. Does this Abernathy guy have any credibility left at all?
elisem@nuchat.sccsi.com (elise mahaffey) (12/15/90)
From elisem Fri Dec 14 14:27:13 1990 To: /users/elisem/.article Subject: Joe Abernathys Work.. Just to mention here, I have been on conferences w/ Abernathy before, he does do his best to research data, but people say "5000.00/month THAT just can't be true", how WOULD YOU know its not true? Where you the one abusing the pbx's or the codes?? I think not. I know for a fact that the Nasa PBX was passed around the country on many different BBS's and many different people used it, just b/c YOU NEVER ran up a phone bill over 50.00$ does NOT mean that over 100 people COULD not do the exact same thing. Just remember that when a pbx is passed around it is used like tissue paper, and passed around like baseball cards, remember, that people will use it maybe once maybe not, and remember that the majority of the people are still using 2400bps modems and if your d/ling games, files and/or utilties this takes TIME. The more people using it the better. Also remember that the NASA PBX was used LONG BEFORE Joe or NASA even new it was being ABUSED. they are making a rough estimate, and I find it quite logical that the bill could HAVE BEEN that high.
las@wnss (root) (12/16/90)
john@mintaka.mlb.semi.harris.com (John M. Blasik) writes: > In article <1m5XT1w163w@wnss> las@wnss (root) writes: > > But often, we're > >called upon to make judgement calls, determining whether the pressure > >of a deadline is more or less important than taking at face value the > >information given us by a "usually reliable source or informant". > > But what about editors? Our local rag carried the AP story before NASA > responded to the outrageous dollar amount of the loss. They didn't > run a follow-up. > > -- john John, A good editor, or editorial staff (the people who select what news stories a paper will carry) should be aware of the content from previous days, and when a foloup is appropriate, they should publish it. I'm afraid I don't know where you're located, but I'd guess you were reading either a very large metro paper, or a small one. Both size print media have their problems. Large papers often juggle people's schedules around, as well as their assignment. Some small papers tend to hire inexperienced staffers. Not offered as excuses, but rather to explain yet another short-coming in the system. One other problem which this incident may point to. Often AP UPI, Reuters, and other wire service stories are used as "filler" to help feed a news hungry beast on a daily basis. If there are fewer ad's on a given day, but the paper is still printing n pages, something has to fill the white space. These are the stories, I believe, which often fall through the cracks, and aren't given foloup treatment.