About those posts . . . plus why you should avoid the media

We're having luck with getting somethings up and we're not having luck with others. We lost an entry which led to Ava and C.I. stepping up to the plate (and then some) and delving into the mail bag.

Currently, we're going round and round in discussion time as we attempt to write a post. We have an e-mail on something and C.I. got an e-mail as well. We'd like to address it. However, the magazine in question asked C.I. to help promote them back in October. C.I. wasn't aware of that until Jess mentioned it. Now the issue we're debating is whether that needs to be disclosed or not?

Jess replied to the e-mail (which requested personal information on C.I.) with a "we already note two columnists regularly and C.I. doesn't give out personal information" and a thanks but not thanks.

Had Jess not opened his mouth, we wouldn't have a problem. However, he mentioned the e-mail and now C.I.'s thinking that if it's not noted that a request for some sort of partnering was turned down (by Jess on C.I.'s behalf), that we can't criticize the magazine.

C.I.'s point is the issue of e-mails at The Common Ills which are held to a different standard than at the other sites in the community. Was this a private e-mail? If so, it can't be mentioned. If not, it can be.

Later today, C.I. will put up something at the site that any press contact that goes on which does not result in an agreement will not be considered to be an issue. All requests for personal information and all requests for interviews or quotes (Jess says quotes were big last month, press contacts for quotes) are turned down. C.I.'s happy to note anything from MediaChannel.org (and has disclosed knowing Danny Schechter -- "and has respect and love for Danny and the work he does," C.I. states) or BuzzFlash ("which does amazing work and should be noted more") but that's not a partnership of any kind. This was a proposal of a partnership as a result of the fact that The Common Ills had linked to many articles from the magazine. ("If it helps, it's not The Nation, Ms. or The Progressive," C.I. notes.) So we're stuck while Ty's significant other attempts to find it in Ty, Jess and Jim's apartment. (Ava notes "Jim may be on the lease but he's always at our apartment." "Our" being Ava and Dona's apartment.) Jess made a print out of it because it struck him as strange. After the print out is found and read to us, we'll make the call on private or not (giving C.I. the last word). But this is an important issue and if we're not able to note the magazine, it's not because we're ignoring a reader of this site that presented a serious issue.

You'll also note that we're posting as we can. That's because it's still hit or miss with Blogger. We'll put it all into an order of some form when we complete this edition.

And we've just been read the e-mail. It was sent on October 17, 2005. We're going to have to debate this some more.

But to have an entry, Dona says we need to add to this.

C.I.'s policy has been "no interviews." That's been the policy since The Common Ills started and that's meant turning down every offer that comes in. C.I.'s happy to suggest people for interviews (and has suggested Delilah Boyd, Danny Schechter, Mark Karlin, Ron Brynaert, Anne Zook and others) . But there's no interest in becoming one more gasbag in a nation full of them already. Sometimes, Ava or Jess has mentioned a turn downed request and the rest of us have been, "Are you crazy!"

We think that less now as we've seen a friend get some local press and noticed what's happened since. (Not pretty.) Our attitude now is that we have our forums and that there is a seductive nature to the access. Would we have pulled punches if access was a concern? We'd like to think we wouldn't but the fact of the matter is that since our friend who blogs got local attention, he's gone much softer on the outlet he used to critique.

Another concern C.I. had, based on non-online experiences, is how easily the media can distort through selective quotes.

"You can spend twenty minutes offering details about how nice an experience was," C.I. notes, "and then be asked to talk about something unpleasant. You give one sentence on that, and that's what the leg goes with. Did you say it? Yes. But you said it in relation to a host of other comments that are left out. A leg's trying to be sure that his or her story is noticed and it's honestly not worth it in most cases to grant an interview. The first time I was distorted, it bothered me. Now I know it's just part of the game and have no interest in doing more than I have to, bare minimum. Having grown up around journalists, I'm smart enough to know how to make demands, but corrections are half-assed and you should always beware of any offer to 'end the dispute' by presenting your side. That's really just another excuse for the outlet to trash you again because as soon as they note your side, they immediately prepare their rebuttal. I have no interest in playing the press game anymore than I have to. As C.I. there's no need to play it at all and I don't. Seriously, be very wary of any 'We want to bury the hatchet so how about we interview you or you write something up and we'll just let it go.' Usually that desire is based not on wanting to bury the hatchet but on wanting to avoid running any of the large number of letters protesting the slam job they did on you. Never, ever accept that kind of offer. I'm deadly serious. If you take nothing else away from this piece, remember that."

A year ago, Jess, Ava, Jim, Dona and Ty wouldn't have agreed with that. As we've learned more about journalism in courses (and heard many wonderful speakers share their experiences), we have to say that's pretty much true. We'll note the journalist's desire is to get a story and it's not to make the subject come off like the embodiment of perfection. The "one minute" C.I.'s speaking of may strike a journalist as much more important than the twenty minutes of praise that preceeded it. That does not excuse offering that one soundbyte as a reflection on the interviewee's views and not noting that it was a minor point of a larger discussion.

A concern C.I.'s had for others (since C.I. doesn't do interviews) is that people aren't prepared for the body slam coming bloggers way. Some hungry journalist will come along and get a number of bloggers to speak on the record. He or she will befriend them, hang out with them ("like that ridiculous profile on the 'brat pack' that nearly destroyed several careers," C.I. notes) and then turn them into cartoons in the printed article.

"Someone's going to come along and do that -- and there's already talk of it in press circles," C.I. notes. "It's the 'lonely, unable to connect outside the computer and with the real world' blogger' narrative as it's being tossed around now. That's how it works, first the narrative, then the 'research' to fit the narrative. Unless you know a journalist's work and respect it, do not invite anyone to observe your life. You're asking for trouble. Whomever does a take down piece on a blogger or a group of bloggers that portrays them in a silly manner will win hosannas and back slaps from many in the media. Whomever writes the piece will be able to grab a year or two of immoratility as 'the journalist who put the bloggers in their place.' Outside of certain magazines, be very wary of newspapers. People need to do what they want, and feel free to blow off my suggestion, but it's out there, and everyone's responsible for themselves."