[Seattle-editorial] Terrorist Suspects Story

[jl at u.washington.edu]

Hi Gentry,

Can you make clear what specifically you're objecting to at this point (i.e. to Portland's reposts, or to the feature, or to user reposts of your info on the Seattle site)?

In case you're talking about the feature...
I understand why you blanked out your original postings, and it's thie kind of thing we have done for non-editorial contributors when asked.. additionally, however, when lots of attention is being paid to our site re. some big event, controversial posts suddenly disappearing runs the very real risk of simply inflaming suspicions that The Man has infiltrated the IMC, we're under attack from the FBI, etc. etc. and consequently encouraging rather than discouraging a firestorm of re-posting the original story, wild rumors, etc. etc. Believe me, it's happened more than once. 

Given that the rumor/unconfirmed report (same thing) was already out there, on other IMCs, I thought the best thing to do would be to acknowledge it as what it was--an unconfirmed report with no backup, in fact one which had been withdrawn by its writer. Again, read what I wrote. The line in the feature is *commenting* on the situation with the original, removed (and already reposted elsewhere) report, not simply repeating what it had said. 

Having said all that, no decision is permanent. If you disagree let's continue this discussion. 

thanks
Jonathan


On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Gentry Lange wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I object to reposting a story on terrorist suspects, there is no source for
> this information other than me at this point, and I removed it as the people
> who contacted me with the information face legal problems regarding this
> story. I believe I made that clear in earlier emails, and it took me several
> days to get this off the wire here and in Portland. At this point the
> original 3 people detained have been arraigned for felony burglary, and I
> have not had further contact with them to discredit this charge. The fact is
> they are not talking to me anymore, and to post this rumor as news, based on
> a story by me, without additional sources is bad journalism, and goes
> against the requests of the defendents in the case.
> 
> Gentry
>