On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:24:07 -0700
Ted Faber <faber(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:11:48PM -0400, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Or you know not consenting to interviews with someone who's
professionalism you don't respect. Why you would expect someone
engaged in serious journalism or otherwise to offer you the
opportunity to modulate your own statements post facto is beyond
me.
To change what was said, no. To ensure that it's taken in the
proper context, yes. It's done in the media every day.
I think it is unwise to assume that you will get an opportunity to
review a story before publication - let alone offer comments or
corrections - unless you have specifically negotiated that right with
the reporter and perhaps their superiors. YMMV. IANAL.
Right. Years ago, the Bell Labs guide to dealing with the press
specifically warned against even asking if you could review the story
-- reporters often fear you'll try to delete embarrassing things you
said, or even bring pressure to get the story changed. (A few years
ago, I was explaining some arcane technical details to a reporter for a
very reputable mainstream publication. He asked me to review his text
for correctness -- but told me that that was something he wasn't
supposed to do. He made an exception because the text under discussion
was supposed to be factual, not commentary, and I wasn't the focus of
the article. But he was quite clear that his publication *prohibited*
reporters from showing articles to their subjects.)
The only thing you can do is make sure you only talk to reporters you
think will capture your statements correctly. (Btw, don't assume that
reporters make up headlines -- often, they don't, any more than authors
have sole control over book titles or covers.)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf