<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MagMile:
gregwiggins and essxjay, I understand that this is the standard operating procedure for journalists. However, when speaking to someone who is not used to dealing with the media, it would seem to me to be an essentially costless courtesy for a reporter to ask "may I quote you on this?" as well as "may I talk to you about this?" It's costless unless the reporter thinks that people might clam up if they asked for permission to quote, which would be all the more reason to be clear.
I don't know what is or isn't common knowledge, but the fact that reporters have a convenient shorthand doesn't necessarily mean every understands it.</font>
Excellent point MagMile.
Back to the issue of whether comments on FT are in the public domain, I've seen many an article where the journalist will attribute a comment to a certain handle or username from a chat room or bulletin board (Yahoo stock boards come to mind) to add color to an article. Given the anonymity of these stock "gurus" in cyberspace, I have no problem with that, and if the anecdote is taken out of context it is no big deal. Essentially, everything is "off the record" as no one with a legitimate identity is really hurt. And if that is all that Ms. Jane Costello did in this case, then I owe her a partial apology. I originally thought Ms Costello may have revealed yvz-den's actual name in the article.
However, FT is unique in that most of the posters do not hide their real-life identities. And Ms Costello knows that. The stakes are higher for the individual being quoted at that point, and I feel there should be a greater level journalistic professionalism/integrity/courtesy. I realize that journalists have deadlines but it should be incumbent upon the journalist to explain the process to the interviewee. After all, the journalist approached the interviewee, not the other way around.
What I don't understand is why do so many people care about getting quoted in the paper anyway?