[Imc-newsroom] Seattle feature

[Mike Lehman]

Jonathan,
Thanks for your comments. I don't do the feature section (I'm sure
they'll speak up about their methods), but in defense of the article, it
was written just after the P-I article came out. Obviously, that
coverage had its flaws, which we discovered later in the "un-gag" news
conference. We've already taken some flak internally for the fact that
it's still there. With the end of the U of I semester, everyone is
pretty overwhelmed with work. I'll bet it gets fixed soon.

Since I did most of the coverage of the gag situation on the newswire,
I'm glad you find it acceptable. I didn't want to join in the chorus of
nervous nellies that were making ridiculous claims about the FBI taking
control of the site, etc, but I did want to convey the serious nature of
this event and the extremism that the FBI and SS was exercising against
freedom of speech and the press. We'll be watching developments
carefully regarding this, unlike the dominant media that has been
ignoring the story at their own risk.
Mike Lehman

jonathan lawson wrote:
> 
> Hi folks!

> Thanks also for your coverage of our little FBI situation--your feature is
> probably the best among IMC sites. That said, I have a quibble.  The
> statement to the effect that "Tuesday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer cleared
> up the confusion;" from our point of view, the P-I article in fact added to
> the confusion by drawing from the untrue rumor mill,  initially reporting
> that the FBI had seized records, which was completely false (they later
> corrected that mistake). The P-I article also repeated and
> institutionalized the characterization "raid," which the Seattle IMC
> specifically disclaimed.