[Imc-web] suitable feature?

[Mike Lehman]

Paul,
I had my doubts, too, when I first saw it as a Feature (please note that 
someone else made it into one), but as the responses grew, I felt that 
the decision was a good one. While the story didn't _directly_ report 
anything, it was certainly accurate and anticipatory of what followed.

While I may have been a little expansive in my evaluation of what other 
editors may or may not have thought about the story, I think it is 
accurate to say that, in general, that is why stories become features. 
However, I have edited the comment in question to reflect more 
accurately the situation in light of your justifiable criticism that not 
all the editors feel the same. Sorry for speaking for everyone without 
first checking -- it was an emotional and trying day yesterday.

Given the open nature of our Newswires, a caution to readers to think 
for themselves at times like these is not out of line, although much of 
the criticism launched at the story was by those who, quite mistakenly, 
asserted that it was telling people what to think, which, as you've 
mentioned, it did not do (although it is quite common for stories to 
imply that their point of view is accurate -- that's just part of 
journalism and I think unavoidable -- we all are familiar with the whole 
argument about journalistic objectivity.)

I don't believe the story patronized anyone, except those who are in 
love with the idea that IMC gives them a platform to spin nonsense under 
the pretense of news. Given that this problem is both extensive and 
ongoing, and that any other solution would involve going in directions 
to editing the Newswire that none of us want to go, such a small 
cautionary notice is well-justified. Unless we intend to sit down and 
individually refute every wack story that crosses the Newswire, a 
thankless, not to mention infinite, task, this story was both timely and 
necessary. And surrender and inaction in the face of the peddlers of BS 
should not be an option if we expect IMC to retain the credibility that 
it has.

As for it "going global" it was rather obviously pertinent, as can be 
seen be the responses, although perhaps less so here.
Mike Lehman

Paul Riismandel wrote:
> I question whether the current topmost feature on the website 
> "Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster" really belongs as a 
> feature.
> 
> I think I understand the intent, but this story is really nothing more 
> than a caution -- an encouragement to critical thinking. But otherwise 
> reports nothing.  I'm uncomfortable with the features being used to 
> caution people to believe or not believe anything, even if I agree with 
> the point of view.
> 
> For instance,I, as one of the editors, do not necessarily agree with 
> ML's comment to the article:
> "As for why it's on the UC IMC mainpage as a Feature, it's because 
> editors here felt it was timely and important to remind readers that a 
> crop of wild-eyed and unsubstantiated nonsense stories would appear and 
> for our readers to be prepared to read them with a critical eye."
> 
> I'm not asking that it be removed, but I do wish to spark discussion 
> about what is appropriate for features or not, especially considering 
> that our features syndicate to the global IMC site.