[Imc-web] another feature in question

[Paul Riismandel]

OK, The top feature tonight is: "FDA Investigates UIUC's Sale Of Biotech 
Pigs--Should Have Been Destroyed." Now, in terms of content, absolutely 
this should be a feature.  But, it's simply a repost of an AP wire 
story, which I *STRONGLY* believe should NOT be a feature.

Quite fundamentally, I don't believe that mainstream media reposts 
should ever be features on our website.

So, given this, how could this story be a feature?

Well, the way I've used in the past is to do a little snooping around 
and see what other sources might say about it. Did the Gazette report on 
it? Is it in the Tribune?  Is it on Reuters?  If so, then I write a 
summary that references these articles.  Pick them apart and pit them 
against each other.

What if they all just reprint the AP story?  Well, then OUR story is, 
here's this important lead being buried  - ask Why isn't the N-G looking 
at this?

(OR, we could make some phone calls and see if we can't produce some 
original reporting)

With regards to features in general, I'm very sensitive to the points 
that Jason raised, that things can be over-proceduralized, in turn 
creating all sorts of havoc and bad feelings.  But I also think that 
there has to be some kind of general guideline. If for no other reason 
that it gives guidance to future web keepers about how things have been 
done.

I don't know how the Free Radio Berkeley collective ran, but if the web 
group decides on some guidelines they stand only so long as the 
collective stands behind them -- meaning, if  new collective doesn't 
like 'em, then change 'em.

Guidelines can be tools of exclusion, or they can be tools for 
construction -- things can be just as divided if we have two strong 
poles of opinion on features battling it out. I prefer guidelines simply 
because they will be born of compromise and discussion.

--paul