SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Ask Vendit Off-Topic Questions

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Walkingshadow who wrote (6052)3/6/2005 5:20:14 PM
From: Jill   of 8752
 
Terry:

<<But that is not at all to say that you cannot write what you like anyway. In the example you gave, you could imagine a different outcome. Let's say you fact checked things, and found that it was not so black-and-white. That some of the things you wrote were of questionable accuracy, and you just didn't know. Or maybe that some of your facts were wrong. And let's say the magazine editor and publisher insisted the piece be run anyway, because it fit with their particular agenda, or because they figured they'd attract a lot of eyeballs and sell a lot of magazines.>>

No, that's not what fact-checking is and no editor knowledgeably EVER lets that happen. If a writer or reporter fakes quotes and says they're real, the editor may trust the writer, and be wrong (as w/ Blair, or Glass), but never ever does a respectable magazine knowingly go ahead and publish something of questionable accuracy. ANd they do need to be sure sources are checked. That's why Dan Rather got fired--there wasn't enough fact checking. Can you fire a blogger?

When you fact check, you check quotes with the source and make sure every word is correct. YOu tape conversations, too. You make sure your facts are correct. Opinions are different, you can state an opinion but it is not a fact.

And you could be sued anyway because in this country, anybody can sue anybody and I think tort law should be changed so those who sue have to pay damages if their suits were frivolous.

In terms of blogs, they're unregulated. They're just people posting stuff. And Apple has a legal right to sue the bloggers for leaking private information. As I said, you didn't see those leaks in reputable news media. They have a right to say their business could potentially be damaged by that--and to be even more concerned that such leaks could go out into the industry far ahead of a leak on a blog, and damage the gorilla nature of innovation that you as a stockholder are I'm sure very pleased with.

Checks and balances are just that--as in our constitution. They are not absolutes. They are guidelines. So, as I said, I hope the judge sets the guidelines.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext