Journalists and Message Boards

[Fat Guy]

Russ, first of all thanks for taking the time to answer questions from our users. More importantly, however, I'd like to thank you for your long-standing participation on eGullet as a regular posting member.

Which brings me to my question: I think all of us who administer eGullet, and more than a few of our members, are confounded by the number of journalists who lurk here but never contribute, or who post only when they need to collect comments for a story. So I ask you: what's up with that? You're a bigger journalist than most any ten of our lurker-journalists combined, yet you post here like it's just the natural thing to do if you're going to be on the site anyway -- which is certainly how I feel about it as well. What do you think is behind so many journalists' decisions not to do the same?

And to expand upon the question a bit, would you address the issue of journalists harvesting Internet message boards for stories and information? Where would you draw the line, for example, in terms of attribution? Obviously, in journalism, space does not permit attribution of every single underpinning of every idea. And most good journalists have multiple sources for most of the basic premises of their stories. But I do get the feeling that Web-based discussions are more heavily exploited and misappropriated in this regard than, say, telephone interviews. What do you think?

[Mark Sommelier]

Steven,

The question you just asked Rus is, I have to say , the most interesting question and topic that I have ever read on eG. I hope Russ rocks with this one. Hey Russ! (Russ and I are acquainted).

[russ parsons]

Jeez, I'd say that's two or three of the most pointed questions. And good ones. Let me do my best:

First, my participation in the Gullet is strictly voluntary, a combination of logorrhea and working at home (or trying to avoid working at home ... sure beats free cell). Other journalists may feel different. I don't view my participation as quid pro quo for my occasionally getting story ideas. I do think there's a tremendous misimpression about what journalists do and how they do it: when I was editing the section, I was always amazed when people would bring me to task for not having covered their event. I would ask: Did you send us a note to let us know? Well, no, you're the Los Angeles Times, you should know. That's not how it works.

How it works is this: Journalists (well, good ones, or at least hard-working ones) are the Great White Sharks of information. We are compulsive consumers. We read other newspapers, we read magazines, we read books, we watch television shows, we eavesdrop at restaurants, we talk to friends and we read online message boards. We view any of those as legitimate ways to get story ideas.

Two things: Most journalists have to file at least a story a week (some of my colleageus at smaller newspapers, are now choking on their coffee ... when I was food editor at the Albuquerque Tribune in the early '80s, I edited the section, wrote a cover story, wrote a column, wrote a weekly restaurant review, and was the local rock critic). We NEED story ideas. Which leads to Item No. B, I think I can speak for most journalists when we say that we don't think the story idea is the same as the story. For us, the real work is teh reporting, verifying, writing and editing of the piece.

So if someone writes about the El Bulli cookbook on this board and I then write about it (to use a real-life example), I certainly don't think I've ripped anyone off. After all, you had nothing to do with the four or five interviews and certainly not with the 2,000 words (or the whacking down to 1,200 or whatever).

Neither do I feel obliged to reveal where I first heard of the story. I don't do that when I hear about a good story at a dinner party, so why should I with this? That said, I do draw the line at quoting people from the board without first verifying what they said and making sure they want to be quoted on it. I think Steve Klc will attest to that.

There were a lot of questions in there, did I get to most of them?

[Fat Guy]

I guess I'm asking for some advice. Let me give you just one of many examples:

We have had several posts from reporters at the Wall Street Journal that have been substantially similar to this one . . .

phidippides29 Posted: Jul 15 2003, 06:58 PM 

Group: Associate Member

Posts: 1

Member No.: 9766

Joined: 15-July 03

I am a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. I am looking for reaction to recent changes by UPS and FedEx in their policies for shipping wine. Please contact me ASAP at 404-865-4355 or rick.brooks@wsj.com. Thanks. 

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...ST&f=24&t=24369

Note that this person 1) has only ever posted once in the history of eGullet; 2) solicits responses via private means not on our boards; and 3) has never mentioned eGullet, ever, as far as I know, in a story.

Do you think this kind of behavior is a bit exploitative? I don't wish to put you in a position of speaking ill of your journalistic colleagues, so you certainly don't have to speak specifically to the conduct of any one reporter. When I said I was asking for advice, I meant it: what I really want to know is how do you think we, as eGullet's management, should react to a post like that, if at all?

[russ parsons]

Aaaah, specifics. Let me answer this one generally. Reporters are by training (or nature) people who are completely unembarrased about making complete pains in the asses of themselves in the service of getting a story. Whether it's knocking on the door of a family that's just suffered a tragedy or walking up to strangers in a public place and asking personal questions, or posting on a website soliciting interviews. As far as I'm concerned, none of those is wrong. And in each case, the person being solicited has the right to simply close the door and ignore the question.

What you choose to do with this as a matter of policy is up to you. I do think that it would be difficult to justify any kind of ban in a website that is easily visible to the public. I mean, if you hold a loud conversation in a public space, it's difficult for me to see the argument for your right of privacy. I also don't see what damage it does to the site.

On the other hand, if people find it offensive, the simplest thing is to ignore it. If they're not getting responses, they'll go away.

[Fat Guy]

Many thanks for this and your other thoughtful answers, Russ. I'm going to ask you another question now, on a separate topic. See you there . . .

[kpurvis]

Forgive me if it's presumptious to jump into a conversation that is rightfully focused on my colleague. I always enjoy hearing/reading Russ' feedback. As another journalist who reads regularly and occasionally takes part in the egullet discussion, I wanted to bring up a point on the lurking issue. I posted a lurking question way back when I first joined egullet, because I was concerned about the very issues Steve raises.

I read egullet in the same way Russ describes, as part of that great gathering-in of viewpoints, thoughts, inspirations and random brain waves that is the work of writing. To me, it's like those 7 or 8 food magazines and three wire service feeds I read. For instance, the Amanda Hesser/Sandra Lee discussion was part of what resulted in my column this week, on how to define a cook. It was only part, though.

When it comes to posting, though, I do sometimes hesitate. I think of writing like a well in a dry country. You have to let the water build up and you get very guarded about taking too much of it out. I am paid to write and I am always aware that my first responsibility is to my paper and my section. So there are many times when I don't reply because I'm saving the words for my job. Sort of like saving the dance for the one what brung me.

It's also a matter of time. Unlike Russ, I am a one-person section (luckily, I don't have to review restaurants, but I do have to run the wires, edit stories, handle the mail, answer the reader questions, fend off the PR flacks, etc., in addition to writing, reporting and columnizing). Egullet readers are intelligent and well-considered, so formulating an answer can take as long as writing a column.

Like Russ, I'd agree on those people who use egullet as a way to harvest sources. Don't reply and they'll figure out it's a dry hole and go away.