daSto

[Fat Guy]

We've been working for awhile on media guidelines, because it's important for eGullet to make the effort to explain itself to the press. In this instance, however, if we had media guidelines in place it's hard to imagine anything I'd have wanted the Post to do differently. Of all the newspapers in the world that have covered eGullet -- and I think that number is somewhere around 100 at this point -- the Washington Post has lead the pack in terms of responsible, respectful use of our site. The editors and writers at the Post have always been sensitive to issues of accuracy, they have given back to eGullet by participating in Q&As here . . . indeed, in writing our media guidelines, in our drafting sessions, we have often said, "How would the Washington Post handle this?"

Which is not to say the Post is a perfect paper. I disagree with much of what I read in the Post food section. But the reporter in question behaved conscientiously and wrote a good article. We can certainly disagree with it, but I see no basis for objections to the reporter's professionalism or ethics. eGullet is viewable by the public. What you write here can be read by anybody in the world who has an Internet connection and understands English. If you have anything to say that you don't want that set of people to read, don't say it. Although this is a conversation in the sense that it is interactive and people respond to one another, it is not the same as a spoken conversation: it is not private and it is in writing. We have some private forums for our members to discuss site-related issues, so I do think it would be unethical for someone to quote from those without permission, and of course very long quotes from anywhere on the site might exceed the bounds of fair use, but most of our forums are public and most newspapers are only quoting a few words. If you go on a TV show and have a "conversation" with the host of the show, you know you may be quoted the next day in any newspaper. If you write an article in any publicly readable medium -- a newspaper, a magazine, a Weblog -- someone may read you and quote you. Think of eGullet the same way -- it's like an interactive Weblog and journal of food ideas. It also happens to be fun and it's a community, but I assure you a very high percentage of the top magazine and newspaper food editors are reading eGullet and using it as a source. We're making news here, people. News will be covered by the news media. Get used to it.

[browniebaker]

Only in reading the morning paper this morning did I come to know of the whole eGullet-instigated tempest in a teacup over the name of Gillian Clark's store. Having just now read through this thread, I am flabbergasted at the nastiness, especially of the initial posts attacking the PC-ness of the name "Da Sto." As another DC eGulleteer, all I can say is, lighten up, DC eGulleteers.

I love the name, "Da Sto." It's humorous, clever, and apt.

My compiments to the Chef, Gillian Clark, for the civil way she has handled her detractors.

[JPW]

I think Marc Fisher reduced the discussion to "foodie snobs" vs.  "courageous chef."  I'm curious whether he attempted to contact the eGullet posters that he quoted?

I would assume that if he had, they would have mentioned it.

Well Marc? You obviously have lurked here at least once.

Wanted to revise this based on my original comment in the general food media thread.

It would have been nice if Marc had contacted someone beyond Gillian to get other perspectives of the issue.

However, it is important to remember that this is an op-ed column not a reported article.

As such, he is free to present the discussion that occured here in whatever light he wants.

I, for one, feel that he wasted too much column space on the debate we had with Gillian. To me the following (at the very end of the column) represents something more important that he would have done well to focus the piece more directly on --

From the column

"White people think they're supposed to have this reaction in defense of the black community," the chef says. "But the people who say 'da sto' don't see anything wrong with that. And the white people who criticize this are saying that there is something bad about saying it that way."

This is just too circular, too sensitive. But it's the kind of mini-furor we've come to expect in Washington, where dining is as self-segregated as church and radio.

"When we opened, black people wanted to know if this place is black-owned before they'd sit down," Clark says. Now, her dining room is a leading indicator of the area's changing face.

All of which is just so much sociology to Clark, who insists that "I consider myself a chef who just happens to be black. Not a black chef."

Edited August 10, 2004 by JPW (log)

[Fat Guy]

I, for one, feel that he wasted too much column space on the debate we had with Gillian.

The debate between Gillian and several eGulleters is the story.

[Steve Klc]

That might have been more difficult for him to focus on JPW simply because Todd Kliman of the City Paper--also a recent DC eGullet forum Q&A guest--just ran with the dining segregation angle in his very astute profile of Gillian--so Fisher would have had to work out new ways to advance the story a bit and I think when you're writing a column on deadline that's a little tougher to do. This is a good thing all around--the eGullet community made news--the exchange between Gillian and eGullet WAS the news--and was covered not typically in Food but atypically in Metro--that's win-win all around. Anyone who drops in here and cares to look around can make up their own mind about the content here--and how accurately Fisher portrayed the various exchanges. There are shades of gray all around.

One thing to remember, though--only a few of us post under our own names--most who post here do so anonymously and that makes it much more difficult to expect to be quoted in such a brief column when your remarks can only be attributed to a screen name. Does anyone know if Fisher does a weekly WashingtonPost online chat? If so, I think it would be prudent for a few eGulleteers to weigh in.

[eunny jang]

I still think it's a stupid name. The un-cleverness, that is - the race issue is the last reason why I don't like it - though I thought I made that clear in my later posts to clarify, it seems Marc didn't pick up on that at all. Maybe it's unreasonable to think that he would contact posters, but he could have read the whole thread.

I don't think of myself as particularly PC or un-PC. And actually, I'm not white, and I'm not educated.

Hooooooray for CK, daSto and Marc Fisher! Won this pack of squabbling overeducated hyper-PC children right on over.

[JPW]

That might have been more difficult for him to focus on JPW simply because Todd Kliman of the City Paper--also a recent DC eGullet forum Q&A guest--just ran with the dining segregation angle in his very astute profile of Gillian--so Fisher would have had to work out new ways to advance the story a bit and I think when you're writing a column on deadline that's a little tougher to do. This is a good thing all around--the eGullet community made news--the exchange between Gillian and eGullet WAS the news--and was covered not typically in Food but atypically in Metro--that's win-win all around. Anyone who drops in here and cares to look around can make up their own mind about the content here--and how accurately Fisher portrayed it.

One thing to remember, though--only a few of us post under our own names--most who post here do so anonymously and that makes it much more difficult to expect to be quoted when your remarks can only be attributed to a screen name.

Steve,

Several good points that I agree with.

However, it is common practice for larger newspapers to reprint stories that have run in other (smaller) media. Howard Kurtz, the Post media writer has noted this several times. Sometimes it is done well, with attribution to the original author and that author's own input. Sometimes, it is done poorly and is done in very ethically questionable ways by even the best newspapers.

The City Paper does not have the same reach as the Post. It's not always the easiest thing to find, even in Silver Spring (the only place I frequent regularly that I see it is Whole Paycheck). To spread awareness of the larger issue beyond the readership of the City Paper would not necessarily require adding too much to Kliman's piece. I wonder if Marc Fisher was even aware of the Kliman piece.

Just my opinion on this one.

[morela]

Marc Fisher's Chat this Thursday at Noon

[JPW]

I, for one, feel that he wasted too much column space on the debate we had with Gillian.

The debate between Gillian and several eGulleters is the story.

Fat Guy,

This particular location in the Post is for a rotating cast of columnists to do generally "day in the life of" pieces that can be used as parables for larger issues.

In this case, I just feel that the "reportage" took center stage over the exploration of larger issues that could have been more interesting.

[hillvalley]

One thing to remember, though--only a few of us post under our own names--most who post here do so anonymously and that makes it much more difficult to expect to be quoted in such a brief column when your remarks can only be attributed to a screen name.

I disagree. It would only have taken him a few minutes to register and PM or email anyone, real name or handle.

[FunJohnny]

And Remember the "Washington Post Rule": NEVER say or do anything publicly that you would not want to read about on the front page (or in the interior sections) of the Washington Post.

[Steve Klc]

JPW--agreed almost on all accounts. But if he had been reading eGullet, he might have come across this post by Todd talking about his experience as a white professor teaching at Howard and how that experience might relate to his food coverage:

"But I will say that, having been there, I’m more disposed than ever to think that noticing, in whatever form it happens to take, is not the problem. Not noticing is the problem. Indifference is the problem. Pretending there is no problem is the problem. Claims of colorblindness, claims of innocence, claims of our mutual commonality … these seem, if not empty to me, then certainly dubious. Noticing is not judging. I’m more interested than ever, I think, in the ways that things are not alike, in the ways that difference drives culture, neighborhoods, etc.

And food to me is about so much more than what is set down before you on the plate. I'm interested in where it's coming from, and why. I'm interested in who's making it, and why. Who's eating it, and why. The processes, the economics, the politics, the cultural implications, these things all interest me a great deal."

And for some reason this crystallized for me why eGullet is such a special place--these things interest us all a great deal and eGullet can't be pigeonholed on sophisticated or simple or divisive themes. It was here that "DaSto" was discussed, it was here that Gillian was questioned, noticed and for many appreciated in some new ways, and it was here that Fisher noticed that we noticed--and found his next idea for a column.

I respect your disagreement hillvalley, would it have been nice or preferable if he had gone to the trouble to ferret out the real names of the anonymous users he quoted? Sure, especially if he had the column inches to expand the story--but he didn't and those users also had the option to sign their post with their real name which they themselves opted out of. I wonder if a journalism ethics person might say that what Fisher did was respectfully retain that chosen anonymity?

[hillvalley]

I respect your disagreement hillvalley, would it have been nice or preferable if he had gone to the trouble to ferret out the real names of the anonymous users he quoted? Sure, especially if he had the column inches to expand the story--but he didn't and those users also had the option to sign their post with their real name which they themselves opted out of. I wonder if a journalism ethics person might say that what Fisher did was respectfully retain that chosen anonymity?

Steve, actually we agree. I don't think he needed to find out users real names, contact posters, etc. In the past the Post has done articles about eG/EGCI without contacting authors/posters.

I was just pointing out that had he wanted to contact anyone here, it is quite simple, handle or no handle.

[morela]

"Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. "

http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php

[mnebergall]

"Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. "

http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php

What utter rubbish. Private people have no more or less "right" to control information about themselves than anyone else, they have greater "ability" to control information. Public officials' are subject to laws such as the Freedom of Information Act only with respect to their official acts; beyond that, they are private parties. Private people are subject to the subpoena power, limited only privileges such as attorney-client and doctor/patient, and by the 5th Amendment right against compelling self-incrimination. I'd be curious whether the eGullet powers that be have ever been on the receiving end of a subpoena asking for information about an eGulleteer. I can see that happening in a libel case where a participant said something nasty about a restaurant and the restaurateur wants the identity of the poster.

[morela]

mnebergall:

this forum isn't necessarily designed to be reported on, though.

People who post in here or in any newsgroup that can be publicly accessed, don't opine with a preconceived notion that something they say will end up in print. Or at least not until recently.

A public figure has a press officer, a company has public affairs/communications office, a chef or restaurant might have PR.

(They are equipped to relate to the media for obvious reasons and it's in their interest to do so. A private guy can just not answer the phone, that is their control.)

I think if someone decides to be anonymous, it's up to them to disclose who they are (if they want and make themselves accessible). That's the only point I was making.

[Fat Guy]

eGullet users are pseudonymous rather than anonymous. There is one username per member, and it is easy to view all posts by a member. We also require real names and addresses upon registration; we simply keep those confidential for security and privacy purposes -- but as it says in our user agreement we will revoke the privilege of a pseudonym if a member uses it as a sword rather than a shield. There is ultimately no logical difference, in my opinion, between a consistently utilized pseudonym and a real name, assuming the user of that pseudonym is only using that one pseudonym and has no other public identity in the relevant field.

Let me ask, however, that any further discussion of anonymity as a general issue be held in the Policy Discussion Forum, where there is already discussion of that issue in progress. This thread is for the more immediate issue of Da Sto and the Washington Post's coverage thereof. Thanks.

[mnebergall]

I think we agree. the ultimate way to prevent your opinions from showing up in the newspapers is to not express them in the first place, keep them to your self.

Whenever someone posts on eGullet, or any other online place else for that matter, the post is there for the world to see. My point is that using a screen-name generally provides pretty effective anonymity, subject to some limits (subpoena slapped on the Fat Guy for your email address or other information).

[DCMark]

Not to mention that one can lie when registering. While they do require name, address and phone number I doubt its verified. The nice thing about this group is that our fairly frequent meetings provides plenty of opportunity to put a name to a face. Except for Don of course!

Edit: From the Site Fourm I see that they do verify.

Edited August 10, 2004 by DonRocks (log)

[sara]

Man, a girl goes on a little vacation (to get engaged to another Egulleteer, btw!), and look what she misses....

Ok, mine is a small journalistic point. I just read the thread, and based on my read, Fisher did a slightly dishonest thing in implying that two different foodies 'lit into the chef' when in fact both quotes he presents are from Eunny Jang:

"The foodies lit into the chef"

"Is this hysterically tongue-in cheek" BLAH BLAH one chatter asked.

"How could five little letters..BLAH BLAH" added another.

See--this implies that two different people said these things, when VERY clearly, even to a non-Gulleteers, it was the one and the same person. This is dangerous writing IMO, simply because it implies more of a crowd on a given side than there was. In other words--what if one person said a bunch of stuff and then you broke it into quotes and said 5 different people said it, sounding like they all agreed? I don't disagree with the story, but do think it implied a different balance of opinions on the thread than there actually was (tho I am just reading it today and perhaps there's been editing/deleting of some nastier posts- I don't know).

Either way, I had the pleasure of dining at the Kitchen PRIOR to all this, before leaving town recently, and DAMN is that food good! Gillian Clark & Carman Luntzel can get together with their kountry-style kitchens and cook me up a meal anytime, anywhere--and I know it'll be the best ever! They share so much talent & 'tude, I really do see a great TV show or something comin' out of it!

[DonRocks]

Think this thread's about to die down?

Think again...

[Al_Dente]

Think this thread's about to die down?

Think again...

I'm on the edge of my seat...

[JPW]

Let me guess.......

Please allow me to be the first to welcome Marc Fisher to eGullet as an active participant.

Well, am I right?

[iamthestretch]

Think this thread's about to die down?

Think again...

Nah, I'm betting Sietsema's gonna saddle up this dead horse.

[Al_Dente]

Think this thread's about to die down?

Think again...

Nah, I'm betting Sietsema's gonna saddle up this dead horse.

I'm thinking it will either be Al Sharpton or Bill Cosby.