[Imc-dc-editorial] "public figure" definition, please

[D. N. Russo]

At 03:05 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Rupert:
>
>The goal of changing the policy to "attack ideas, not people" is to avoid 
>the "private person vs.
>public person" problem.
>
>zoe

So does that mean we can never write about the idiocy and inhumane, racist, 
psychologically sick, in-need-of-psychiatric-help actions of Bush, 
Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, etc. naming them directly?? That's the point of the 
"public figure" definition. It's quite useful. I want this editorial body 
to clearly state what definition of "public figure" it's using and what 
criteria is in use.

"Attacking" anything I think is a poor use of writing. Reasoned argument 
deserves better language than the war-like language of "attack." Why bring 
war to the newswire in terms of writing style?

Yes, it's a good value to maintain talking about ideas and not about 
people/egos. The same goes for meetings, btw. But there is a boundary 
defined by "public figure" and this is the primary topic.

Can we focus on this?