[Imc-web] another feature in question

[Mike Lehman]

I have to agree that it's problematic. Not to rule out ever posting 
something like this on an emergency basis..., but I have a bit of a 
different concern than Paul's.

We have the fig leaf of saying a user posted something if it's only on 
the Newswire and gets questioned by somebody's lawyer. Once we as the 
"official" editors move it to feature, we in some fundamental sense go 
beyond what could be considered "fair use" possibly...or maybe not..., 
but I'd hate to find out how much the lawyer's gonna cost that will help 
us figure it out.

Besides, the AP has a very active affiliate right here in town. Why 
tweak the dragon's tale when we can find more important press battles to 
fight?

Besides, one could easily right a quick article from the AP piece, the 
News-Gazette article tonight, and what will probably be a DI article 
tomorrow (I wasn't on campus today, but I don't think the story broke 
until this morning?), plus, I would hope, at least some further insight 
than what was offered by the three of the above.

The concerns about "security" and anonymity mentioned by the 
News-Gazette raise some fundamental issues in academia that I thought 
the N-G just skimmed right over without question, so there's a story 
right there. But someone else will have to take the lead.

Besides, this goes right to the Global Wire when it happens and sure 
helps reinforce certain people's opinions of us, that are inaccurate, 
but all too easily stoked by stuff like this.
Mike Lehman

Paul Riismandel wrote:
> 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.
>