Joanek:

I think perhaps if you were to read the whole thread you would realize that it was me who called WSJ after the publication. As I had not seen the article, the person (not Jane) read the relevant portion to me over the phone. It was not Jane fact-checking, the article had already been published. I only found out about it because another FT'er emailed to tell me.

kokonutz:

Thank you for agreeing with me, that has been the whole point of this thread, I DID NOT SPEAK TO A REPORTER.

Perhaps if you read the thread, rather than (apparently) basing your opinion on one totally 'out to lunch' post, you may get a better perspective.

From the beginning, let me note that I am a journalist myself -- and that I've also dealt with Jane Costello of the Journal and she's one of the 'good guys'; both her reporting and her writing have always been comfortably within the canons of ethics of our profession. I haven't seen the specific story, but from what I've read here, that's also true in this instance.

Now Mileagerunner asked:

And Boilermaker replied:

To which I'll concur -- when a reporter is talking to you in their professional capacity then you are being interviewed and the purpose of an interview is to get information AND quotes. The question "may I talk with you about this subject" includes the "may I quote you on this" question as well.

If you do not want to be quoted, either do not give the interview or use the magic words "this is on background" or "this is off the record."

There is a difference between the two -- "background" means the reporter can use the information to get leads to other sources or to confirm information already obtained from other sources but the reporter should not attribute it or quote from it. "Off the record" means a willingness to talk but nothing from the conversation can be used directly. Although hopefully an off the record conversation will give the reporter a deeper understanding of a topic that will help them research and write a better story using other sources that can be attributed or quoted.

Like any profession, there are both bad apples and plain incompetents carrying press passes. But most of us are not trying to manipulate either the story or the people we deal with. The goal of a journalist should be and usually is accurately conveying to the readers, viewers or listeners the "5W's and an H" they teach in J-school: "Who, What, When, Where Why and How."

If a reporter's copy comes out differently than you thought it would, that's what sometimes happens when a third person hears both sides of a story. Or, as the old reporter's axiom holds, 'you know you're doing your job right when both sides hate your guts.'

Sorry if I misunderstood you---but when I read "I had the relevant bits read to me over the phone," I presumed that this was during a conversation with someone at the WSJ prior to the publication. There wasn't any indication that YOU contacted THEM AFTER publication.

On the other hand, you write that you did have email discussions with her about the topic, and that's really no different than a phone interview.

[This message has been edited by joanek (edited 08-10-2001).]

I think the point is that all of the discussion (e-mail or phone) happened after the article had already been published.

If Ms. Costello had phoned or e-mailed yyz-den before she wrote the article, it's likely we'd have no controversy or offended feelings at all.

Well, yyz, if you would give all the facts of the situation rather then letting them dribble out over the course of the thread, it might be easier to comment on your situation.

I am reading your posts to say that you DID exchange e-mails with Jane before the story was published. Of course, I am not privvy to those conversations, but in that sense, I would say that yes, you WERE talking to a reporter. This all makes your first post in this thread seem somewhat disingenuous.

The burden is NOT on the reporter to get permission to print something one says or writes. To the contrary, the burden is on the speaker/writer to make it clear that something is "off the record." Perhaps knowing this you can avoid getting into this situation again.

As for people quoting directly from FT, why would one write something on a 'public' forum that they would be embarassed to have attributed to themselves. What exactly IS the difference between something being published here or in the WSJ? The thoughts are out in the marketplace of ideas. If you dont care to be associated with the thoughts, dont bring them to the marketplace, IMHO...

[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 08-10-2001).]

Hmm, I thought that the very first thing written was quite clear.

she took a quote from one of my posts, and found out who I am (not too difficult as I don't hide).

She then published my real name, the (out of context) quote, where I live, where I work, and what I do for a living - ALL WITHOUT MY PERMISSION in an article that appeared on Aug 07.


I think that there is a serious issue here about who has rights to the content - is it the original writer, is it FlyerTalk, or is it nobody?

PG: it is NOT AT ALL clear to me that the way Jane found out the personal info was not by ASKING for it in an email...

But even if there was no contact prior to publication and Jane did hire a Private Investigator to get YYZ's personal info, I stand by my 'marketplace of ideas' comments.

[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 08-10-2001).]

I see some misinformation here.

Copyright law allows you fair use. In other words, a publication or individual is allowed to quote a reasonable portion of your work, even if it is copyrighted.

In general, on the internet "you own your own words." That is, if you wrote a post and found it reproduced at great length, you might feel your rights were violated. At that point you might take action although you would face a steep hurdle.

As far as the idea that FlyerTalk maintains they own the copyright on what you post - well, perhaps they have the right to use your posts as they see fit, but if you felt your rights were violated, believe me, it would be your fight (and should you post something someone had a legal problem with, the liability would be yours as well).

As far as the reporter's actions, well, they are sloppy but that's about it. Also, newspapers do not generally fact-check - they do not have time. That is common practice. Some magazines do so and some other media such as television as well.

I'm with Kokonutz on this one. If you don't want your personal thoughts shared in a broader forum -- whether that forum is Flyertalk or the WSJ -- don't post them. Just keep them in your head. If you are coming to this board to post, then provide good information and don't complain if people share it. After all, if you don't want it shared, then keep your mouth shut and your fingers off your keyboard.

Two things to add:

1. My company just wanted me to sign a document acknowledging that all posts I make "in my duties" are their property. I asked what I should do if I post a question here regarding a detail of an upcoming business trip. It'll be interesting to see what my employer says.

2. I have been contacted by Jane and declined to be interviewed because of point #1 above. She was very nice about it.

3. I think Jane should get a FT handle and contribute to the discussions, maybe come to a few FT events, etc. Then she wouldn't be an "outsider."

Maybe Jane doesn't want to be misquoted.

So what about when she has been specifically asked not to print something about an airline employee because it was going to cause trouble for that employee. Is that responsible journalistic reporting? She was asked several times not to use the article in question by several flyertalkers, she contacted the person in question, stated "I know who you are you might as well talk to me". Is this the "nice" Jane everyone is talking about? She darn near costs someone very close to me their job haveing been told this would happen and prints it anyway? Sorry, I don't find this journalistically or morally responsible.

------------------
What would you do if you weren't afraid?

Having seen some of the situation in the above post as it unfolded, I find Ms. Costello's behavior in it beneath reprehensible. How she can continue to contact people here, indeed how she can continue to look at herself in the mirror in the morning, is beyond me. Knowing the problems she caused, she has not had the decency to apologize - either on these boards or to the person in question. Apparently she feels that getting a story justifies major damage to the career of an innocent person who is in no way a public figure.

That incident has caused me to decline to speak with reporters in subsequent situations when I otherwise would have. It will take more than a few people posting "she seemed nice when she talked to me" to change my mind.

It seems that the only people defending Jane Costello are the folks who had a "positive" experience with her. Based on my interpretation of the author's original post, Ms. Costello took a random quote out of cyberspace and put it into an article of hers. She tried to contact the author but never managed to verify the story. Instead of withdrawing the quote/anecdote from her article, she decided she had a deadline and couldn't wait. Further, to make matters worse, she reprinted the quote out of context and presented the author in a less than favorable light. That stinks. My question is why hasn't Ms. Costello responded to this allegation from the author. We all know that she uses FlyerTalk for the inspiration of many of her articles. Presumably, she reads FlyerTalk as well. If she has been misrepresented by the author, she has a right to defend herself. I would like to hear her defense.