marcfisher

Quickly, because I have to write tomorrow's column: 1) Mnebergall: Sure, you could well argue that "da Sto" perpetuates stereotypes, but such questions are almost always a matter more of context than of content: If, say, Don Rumsfeld opened a shop called da Sto, I think we'd all agree that he'd be open to much more widespread and legitimate questions about motives and intent than if, say, Gillian Clark or Bill Clinton or Carol Schwartz made the same move. Your beliefs, your past and your public attitudes send the message about your meaning more than do the particular actions or words you deliver. In Clark's case, from what I know of her in one interview and some background reading and conversations and a couple of visits to her place, I think the context for da Sto renders her decision to use that name at least acceptable and probably both fun and provocative, both of which are good things for a chef-owner to be. 2) Eunny Jang--I don't agree that I misrepresented the conversation you all had here. I quoted from both Clark's detractors and her defenders. (I originally had that great line someone used about how none of this mattered--basically a pox on all your houses--in there as an example of the middle ground, but I had to kill it for space reasons.) I think 99 out of 100 reporters would have chosen your words to quote because you most pithily and eloquently stated your case, and it was your posts that got the ball rolling. It would have been unfair NOT to have quoted you. If you'd like to continue this, please join me tomorrow at noon on the Post's site--thanks.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am neither Cos nor Big Al Sharpton. But I'm happy to answer some of the points that have been made here, and to invite any and all to join in my online show tomorrow (Thursday) at noon at www.washingtonpost.com/liveonline to continue the discussion or give the Post's readers a sense of your take on da Sto, Colorado Kitchen, the column, or egullet. I thank Steve Klc for his rousing defense of how I reported the column, but I should probably answer your questions directly on that: It's quite routine for reporters to get story ideas, collect viewpoints, and get a sense of ongoing debates from the many listservs and other online communities in our area. I monitor about 75 neighborhood listservs in every part of the metro Washington region, trying to keep up on local issues. On many of those message boards, people use their real names, and I and other reporters often contact those folks to flesh out our reporting on a given topic. In those cases, I would quote from people's posts or, far more commonly, from our conversations, using their names. Some communities are more geared toward screen names, as egullet is, and in those cases, if we quote from the conversation, we do so anonymously. As several of you noted, the focus of this column was Gillian Clark and da Sto, and the fact that the name of the store had sparked discussion here. I didn't see much call for getting into the personalities of those who were batting around the topic on this site, so I didn't quote anyone here by name. I think Steven Shaw's post on the press and egullet said it all better than I could. Morela's post about private people having a greater right to control information about themselves than public people accurately reflects the nature of libel and privacy law, but has no bearing on this situation. A large part of good, fully textured reporting is based on what you could call glorified eavesdropping--having a good ear on a given community and what its members care and talk about. Online communities are a terrific reporting tool for taking journalists closer to the people we're supposed to write about. JPW suggested that I picked up this story idea from the City Paper; in fact, until I read his post today, I had no idea that CityPaper had written about da Sto. I try to give credit to other publications if I comment on an issue that has first appeared elsewhere, but checking the archives of CityPaper now, I find no such piece. Can you direct me to it? JPW also says that my column is part of a "rotating cast of columnists" who do "day in a life pieces." There's no rotation here at the Post--my column runs three days a week on the Metro front. Metro is also home to two other columnists, Donna Britt and Courtland Milloy, whose pieces run once or twice a week. And I think I'm correct in saying I have never written a day in the life story, though perhaps I'm forgetting one from my years in the Style section. I try to take on issues from every walk of life--politics, social questions, family topics. The column is the only element on the Metro page that appears in all editions of the paper, whether you live in Maryland, Virginia or the District, so I try to use the column to emphasize issues that should cross the boundary lines of our lives, connecting the suburbanite with the city dweller and reaching across the cultural divide of the Potomac. As for the merits of the column, I leave that to you to discuss. But I'll check back later today to answer questions, and invite criticism, questions and comments on my online show tomorrow.