Re: Clearly, nothing she does at this point...

Posted by Ryan on April 17, 2002 at 23:31:32:

In Reply to: Clearly, nothing she does at this point... posted by Corey on April 17, 2002 at 22:28:28:

This is whole topic is driving me crazy. :) And I have to agree wholeheartedly with Carolyn (excellent post, btw.) I forgot who said this, but in my journalism classes one of the things that sticks in my mind that it is NOT the role of the listener/reader to interpret what the communicator is or was trying to say. If mistakes were made, that outcome is not the reader's fault. The reader doesn't search out the writer's intent, nor does she wonder what the person whom was being interviewed *really said.* It certainly is patronizing to expect me, the READER, to assume what I read in a legitimate (I'm assuming it's a fine paper since RLH granted the interview) is skewed, twisted, or just plain wrong. Yes! Mistakes are made. Words are twisted. Typos happen -- but serious journalists--the ones for whom a Peabody looms bright in their futures do not make errors to this extent unless they care little for their careers. So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the newspaper, the journalist and to RLH--simply for being so naive as to think her honesty would not be spun into an interesting, provactive--yet truthful article.

Again, those who disagree seem to want to blame the messenger. You are absolutely wrong in doing this. Do you fact check every article you read in a magazine, newspaper or newsletter? I very much doubt it.

Laurie had every right to share this article. It's for the public. I'm glad that RLH is taking responsibility for the 'mistakes,' and wish her well, I really do. I know Robin had *great things* for RWA, but these have nothing to do with this damaging article. Everyone makes mistakes. But don't beat us over the head for reacting to them. Why is this so hard to understand, or do you just want to keep skirting the issue?

Ryan

: will make you happy, Carolyn.

: I agree with you that it isn't reasonable that we each go out and do extensive research to verify what we've read. In general, we all have news and information sources that we trust and accept at face value the information we get from these sources.

: How many of us know anything about the Idaho Statesman? And how many of us would ever have heard of this news outlet or seen the article on Robin Lee Hatcher if Laurie hadn't brought it to our attention?

: And why did she bring it to our attention? Well, she's in the romance business. She runs a site that is a clearinghouse for news and information on the romance publishing industry.

: On an issue that was sure to be a volatile topic among romance readers, it seems reasonable that a professional site would want to present a balanced view of said topic and would have contacted the author in question before posting the article and accompanying comments.

: A person who wants to stir things up and generate hits on her site, on the other hand, would not.

: The manner in which she initially posted the article, combined with her neglect in contacting Hatcher, makes this site smack of the tabloid journalism she herself has dismissed within this thread.

: A fine day for the romance industry, indeed.

Follow Ups:

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: This is whole topic is driving me crazy. :) And I have to agree wholeheartedly with Carolyn (excellent post, btw.) I forgot who said this, but in my journalism classes one of the things that sticks in my mind that it is NOT the role of the listener/reader to interpret what the communicator is or was trying to say. If mistakes were made, that outcome is not the reader's fault. The reader doesn't search out the writer's intent, nor does she wonder what the person whom was being interviewed *really said.* It certainly is patronizing to expect me, the READER, to assume what I read in a legitimate (I'm assuming it's a fine paper since RLH granted the interview) is skewed, twisted, or just plain wrong. Yes! Mistakes are made. Words are twisted. Typos happen -- but serious journalists--the ones for whom a Peabody looms bright in their futures do not make errors to this extent unless they care little for their careers. So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the newspaper, the journalist and to RLH--simply for being so naive as to think her honesty would not be spun into an interesting, provactive--yet truthful article. : Again, those who disagree seem to want to blame the messenger. You are absolutely wrong in doing this. Do you fact check every article you read in a magazine, newspaper or newsletter? I very much doubt it. : Laurie had every right to share this article. It's for the public. I'm glad that RLH is taking responsibility for the 'mistakes,' and wish her well, I really do. I know Robin had *great things* for RWA, but these have nothing to do with this damaging article. Everyone makes mistakes. But don't beat us over the head for reacting to them. Why is this so hard to understand, or do you just want to keep skirting the issue? : Ryan : : will make you happy, Carolyn. : : I agree with you that it isn't reasonable that we each go out and do extensive research to verify what we've read. In general, we all have news and information sources that we trust and accept at face value the information we get from these sources. : : How many of us know anything about the Idaho Statesman? And how many of us would ever have heard of this news outlet or seen the article on Robin Lee Hatcher if Laurie hadn't brought it to our attention? : : And why did she bring it to our attention? Well, she's in the romance business. She runs a site that is a clearinghouse for news and information on the romance publishing industry. : : On an issue that was sure to be a volatile topic among romance readers, it seems reasonable that a professional site would want to present a balanced view of said topic and would have contacted the author in question before posting the article and accompanying comments. : : A person who wants to stir things up and generate hits on her site, on the other hand, would not. : : The manner in which she initially posted the article, combined with her neglect in contacting Hatcher, makes this site smack of the tabloid journalism she herself has dismissed within this thread. : : A fine day for the romance industry, indeed.