« knowledge access as a public good |
Main
| on (pseudo) holiday July 1-14 »
June 27, 2007Dear esteemed members of the press,Dear esteemed members of the press, I am in the field collecting data and then will be attending a conference. I am not able to respond right now. Do not call my house phone. Do not pester my department. And do *NOT* hound my subletter. All press inquiries should be sent to press [at] danah.org. When I can, I respond. When I can't, I don't. Do not use other email addresses - I check the press one from my phone and answer them in order when I have spare cycles. Other requests are typically ignored. The BBC coverage of my blog essay is hugely problematic. If you want to discuss what I've written, please read the essay itself. This is not a formal report. This is a blog essay based on observations from the field. And this is not a 6-month study; it is a 4-year study with a tide shift that I've noticed in the last 6 months. Again, read the essay. At some point, I will turn this into a formal article, but this is not that. Cover it as you see fit, but do not call it a report. Thank you, Category: reflections & rants
Posted by zephoria at June 27, 2007 8:12 PM
| TrackBack
|
Comments (17)
Wow! It has gotten this bad?
Might want to remove "esteemed" from the beginning of this post...
Posted by sean percival | June 27, 2007 9:26 PM
Posted on June 27, 2007 21:26
::omg:: I've just read the BCC coverage... I can't believe that the BBC accepts this to be published on their site. They must have pretty poor editorial standards... Not wasn't a big BBC reader before this, but i did consider them to be a reasonably reputable source - not after this :-(
Posted by Mathew Sanders | June 27, 2007 9:42 PM
Posted on June 27, 2007 21:42
I've seen some missteps from the BBC before, and as I was reading through my info-addicted level of feeds and continually seeing references to danah's essay, I keep cringing more, and more, and more... it was like playing a game of telephone, you know, and the original message / interpretation got badly corrupted at some turns.
Posted by Sam Jackson | June 28, 2007 12:22 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 00:22
hi, danah, how are you?
it's probably a suggestion you've already thought of, but, instead of saying 'read the essay' (when the reinterpretation is causing you problems & many just /won't/ read it anyway), why not post a press summary here that pulls out the key points *you* want covered & gives reporters a bio/couple of quotes that will assist you?
daniel
Posted by daniel | June 28, 2007 1:24 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 01:24
the BBC gets their news from blogs?? Amazing.
Posted by sriram | June 28, 2007 1:55 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 01:55
Having just read the BBC piece, I'm unsurprised - the post-Hutton BBC have lost what little journalistic integrity they had; they really are a tabloid organisation now.
I fear you're onto a loser with you appeal that visiting journos read your paper too: at best they're under too much pressure, and the story is the distortion that the BBC produced. They've no interest in pursuing (let alone publishing) any more nuanced view.
Posted by Pete Jordan | June 28, 2007 4:44 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 04:44
Can't
Understand
Nothing
Though
Posted by Dan | June 28, 2007 11:44 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 11:44
Can't
Understanding
Nothing
Though
Posted by Dan | June 28, 2007 11:45 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 11:45
Too many of "the press" are poorly disguised leaches...
Posted by Jeremy Zawodny | June 28, 2007 12:02 PM
Posted on June 28, 2007 12:02
I would have called them "misleading" rather than "problematic," since "problematic" doesn't make it clear that it's their fault.
Posted by Will Warner | June 28, 2007 2:49 PM
Posted on June 28, 2007 14:49
- You shouldn't say that all journalists are brain-dead Copy/Paste monkeys with the ethics of a Crack-head Sumatran Pirate; after all, it's just the 99% of them who are whores that give the whole rest of the press a bad reputation. . .
- Excuse-me sir, I bitterly resent that comment.
- You are a journalist?
- No, I'm a whore.
Posted by Bertil | June 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Posted on June 29, 2007 10:17
- You shouldn't say that all journalists are brain-dead Copy/Paste monkeys with the ethics of a Crack-head Sumatran Pirate; after all, it's just the 99% of them who are whores that give the whole rest of the press a bad reputation. . .
- Excuse-me sir, I bitterly resent that comment.
- You are a journalist?
- No, I'm a whore.
Posted by Bertil | June 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Posted on June 29, 2007 10:17
Hello there,
My name is Lee Henshaw and I am an author.
Would you consider having a look at my blog?
I've written a post titled 'the English and the www dot' that I'm trying to refine by inviting comments.
Kind Regards,
Lee.
P.S I think Daniel makes an interesting point.
Posted by Lee Henshaw | June 29, 2007 2:04 PM
Posted on June 29, 2007 14:04
hi danah
i did first read this on the BBC website and then your paper. just goes to show that the BBC too, totally sucks
Posted by almostinfamous | June 29, 2007 9:34 PM
Posted on June 29, 2007 21:34
I liked your infamous article, and I linked to it on my blog. You're an inspiration. :)
Good luck with all the side effects of fame.
Posted by Bianca Reagan | June 29, 2007 11:41 PM
Posted on June 29, 2007 23:41
BBC is close to rock bottom.
Posted by net socializing | July 3, 2007 7:51 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 07:51
Mm, well, I wouldn't say BBC is anywhere near rock bottom, despite this one appalling slip up in what was after all just a human interest fluff piece to them. They're near the top, but they're only human.
Posted by Will Warner | July 6, 2007 11:26 AM
Posted on July 6, 2007 11:26