Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (72858)	6/18/2008 1:51:18 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543041

I've heard two public conversations between David Remnick, the New Yorker editor, and Seymour Hersh. In each, one of the interesting bones of contention, friends though they clearly were, was over editors. I gathered from that that the New Yorker had a much more aggressive policy about editors than a lot of other newspapers/magazines. Hersh complained, friendly, about the constant checking of his sources. His sources are buried deep within the Pentagon, at least for the stories under discussion, and only gave Hersh their stories on anonymity conditions. Which Hersh had a well deserved reputation for protecting. But the New Yorker had a policy that an editor had to check each and every quote. Thus, the necessity for editors to know the sources names and phone numbers and have enough information to verify that the source was who she/he claimed to be. And then there were the more limited discussions about editors changing sentences which changed meanings; dropping paragraphs which changed meanings. And so on. Clearly very large bones of contention. And it was clearly something that Hersh thought his standing in the journalist community should have given him a pass.