Tom,

I understand what you are saying about Berry Tramel’s video being an “editorial piece.” Frankly, some of his articles during the Hornet’s stay here (front page once or twice, as I recall) didn’t pan out, even though stated as “fact” (I’m thinking about a deal being struck with Geo. Shinn about the Hornets ownership) might also be deemed “editorial” pieces, as it turned out. The point is, it’s hard to distinguish between editorials and “fact” reporting, sometime.

In any event, it must be acknowledged that, as member of the Fourth Estate, press reporters have much more “stature” than anonymous posters at talk forums do; with that stature comes a degree of responsibility, I think, to speak carefully and responsibly.

All this is aside from the fact that “press” reporters did not check out their sources when assuming that what THEY read on the internet was fact. The fake website wasn’t even a “talk forum” … it was just a fake website which someone set up on his own and which some members of the 4th estate in Texas didn’t bother to check out before “running” with the story. Who’s responsible for that (by category), the print media or some talk forum?

More, I rather doubt that the constitutional “press” protections would likely extend to anonymous or or non-anonymous posters on talk forums, but that’s just my guess.

None of what I’ve said is meant to excuse ANYONE from the responsibility associated with what they publish, be that on-line or in the print media. But, somehow, I’d like to think and hope that those in the print media would be very sensitive to the trust and responsibility which has been historically and constitutionally theirs — not to mention sensitivity to their own credibility and how their “fact” reports will be regarded, when they don’t.

If any of what I’ve said makes any sense at all.

Doug Loudenback

I understand what you are saying about Berry Tramel’s video being an “editorial piece.” Frankly, some of his articles during the Hornet’s stay here (front page once or twice, as I recall) didn’t pan out, even though stated as “fact” (I’m thinking about a deal being struck with Geo. Shinn about the Hornets ownership). The point is, it’s hard to distinguish between editorials and “fact” reporting, sometime.

In any event, it must be acknowledged that, as member of the Fourth Estate, press reporters have much more “stature” than anonymous posters at talk forums do; with that stature comes a degree of responsibility, I think, to speak responsibly.

All this is aside from the fact that “press” reporters did not check out their sources when assuming that what THEY read on the internet was fact. The fake website wasn’t even a “talk forum” … it was just a fake website which someone set up on his own and which the 4th estate in Texas didn’t bother to check out before it “ran” with the story. Who’s responsible for that (by category), the print media or some talk forum?

More, I rather doubt that the constitutional “press” protections would likely extend to anonymous or or non-anonymous posters on talk forums, but that’s just my guess.

None of what I’ve said is meant to excuse ANYONE from the responsibilty associated with what they publish, be that on-line or in the print media. But, somehow, I’d like to think and hope that those in the print media would be very sensitive to the trust and responsibility which has been historically theirs — not to mention sensitivity to their own credibility and how their “fact” reports will be regarded, when they don’t.

If any of what I’ve said makes any sense at all.

Doug Loudenback

What I find ironic is the criticism of him as a print reporter attempting to adapt to the on-line video format. Would these same critics be as harsh on some of our local t.v. anchors (experienced in the electronic media format) should they were “asked” to write a by-line for publication?

I’ll write off this flagrant foul as a n00B mistake, and give him the benefit of the doubt (I think he’s earned it) , but it won’t be easy. And obviously I’ll have to at least consider using that video in the future as an extreme, local example of how not to present yourself online.