Lydia,
Very much delayed (because we're so busy):
Sorry that you feel that way. I thought my "selling shoes" example
was within the marquess of Queensbury rules. If you feel that it was a
low blow, and therefore, illegal or unethical, then it must have offended
you. I genuinely regret any offense. We don't have a referee, but I did
not intend to throw an unsportsmanlike blow at you. Please accept my
apology.
The issue, it seems to me, goes more to press freedom than
"professionalism". Leaking the Pentagon Papers to Daniel Shorr was
certainly unprofessional of the government employee that did it, but it
was not unprofessional for the Village Voice to publish them.
Discrediting unsigned material merely because it is unsigned can become
an effective way to enforce censorship when (in the current Whitehouse
climate) rhetorical crimes are being charged. Freedom of speech, I
think, includes freedom to decide what one will say and what one will
not say and whether it is for attribution or not. "Off the record" and
"background", I think, are valid journalistic traditions that serve to
inform the nation better than if they were to be eliminated.
Just my view,
Terry
.........................
On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, Lydia Wilson wrote:
>
> Terry:
>
> I must disagree with you. The comment which appeared
> in the _American_Lawyer_ (Oh, low blow!) was made as part of
> a survey. Surveys traditionally guarantee secrecy in order
> to ensure a good response rate.
>
> I find that an off-the-cuff remark that would not have
> been said had accountability been attached, for a survey,
> is far different than a diatribe from an individual who claims
> to be a talented library administrator under the auspices of
> an advisory piece.
>
> The publication of this piece also raisesquestions of
> discretion on the part of the editor of _Law_Lines_ for
> including such an article. There is a great deal of debate
> going on in New York now as to who wrote the article and a lot
> of wondering by people all over town if it could have been
> their director. It is fairly clear at this point who the
> author is, so hopefully that discussion will die down quickly.
> But the point is, the panic never needed to take place at all.
>
> I do not believe that author accountability leads to sanitized
> diplomacy and firm PR. I believe it leads to rationally
> thought out and reasonable publishing that serves to promote
> and improve the profession in a constructive manner.
>
> I continue to maintain that the anonymous publication
> of an article such as that featured in the current issue
> of _Law_Lines_ was irresponsible on the part of the editor
> and unprofessional on the part of the author.
>
> Lydia E. Wilson
> Tax Librarian
> Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
> 1285 Avenue of the Americas
> New York, NY 10019
> Phone:(212)373-2456
> Fax:(212)373-2221
> E-Mail: BM.PWW@RLG.STANFORD.EDU
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:48:59 PST