Boz Cappie wrote:
> Given that, surely that means that this list is AND should be open to
> public scrutiny. And that means that journalists may, and SHOULD,
> scrutinise it as part of their job (we all know who they probably
> are). Because, essentially, anything that IS or MAY become public
> policy (official or de facto), such as internet policy, should be
> under scrutiny and open to criticism.

I don't want to waste everyone's disk space arguing this at length, so I'll
just make some quick points.

1. We (journos) should obey what is now in the footer, as a common courtesy if
nothing else. We have manners, don't we? It's not the law we should follow, or
even ethics (although that would have a lot to do with it), it should be a
matter of scruples.

2. Even if we disagree with whether this is a public forum or not, it would be
constructive for all concerned if list members were assured that they will not
be quoted directly unless asked.

3. I don't know about anyone else, but to me, reporting on the Internet
industry means being a good citizen of the Net and not causing trouble where
it is not deserved. The list members are trying to do a Good Thing (tm) so we
should respect their needs.

4. "True 'public' dissemination" means talking to people, checking facts and
making sure context is retained. It doesn't mean cut-n-pasting text from an Inbox.

5. We should keep our journo-spam to a minimum, and restrict our observing and
critiquing to our own media.

-- 
Paul Montgomery, features editor for Image & Data Manager and assistant
editor for Internet World. Lives like a JavaBean. Go Paraguay in WC98!
mailto:monty§knapp.com.au  Tel: +61 2 9318 2644.  Fax: +61 2 9310 4608.
  "Just like the ocean, always in love with the moon / It’s overflowing
  now, inside you." Jeff Buckley, Sketches for My Sweetheart the Drunk.