http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/62538Funny stuff. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter requested a private meeting with Bruce Levenson, a co-owner of the Atlanta Hawks and Thrashers. He also happens to be a journalist himself. The subject of the meeting was kept "secret" since it apparently was a sensitive one.
What happens at the meeting? The AJC reporter asks him if he posts anonymously as "Whammer" on the AJC's website. He says he doesn't. She then comes up with her smoking gun... bringing forth records that clearly show the "Whammer" emails were clearly coming from inside his company's internal network. He then informs the reporter that his company's internal network is accessible to over 700 employees worldwide.
He's later exonerated:
Quote:
Later that day, Swartz informed me that at the exact time I was meeting with her, Whammer struck again. I was off the hook, she told me, adding that the paper now thought that Whammer could be my partner Ed. (What she didn’t know: Ed at the time was in the hospital battling spinal meningitis, unable to even look at a computer screen.)
And then, he goes off on the paper and it's practices regarding the printing of reader response on their website:
Quote:
“If you are not Whammer, what will you do to stop these e-mails?” Swartz asked me. I told her I wouldn’t do anything. We don’t read our employees’ e-mails; I wasn’t going to conduct a witch hunt; and even if I found out who the person was I couldn’t prevent him or her from sending e-mails (or old-fashioned mail for that matter) to the AJC in this wonderfully free country.
I’ve thought for years that many electronically sent letters to the editor published by the AJC’s Web site (including those in response to Schultz’s attacks on me, as well as those posted by Whammer) don’t seem suited for publication.
One published comment from “LAC” challenged me to a street fight and called me a “potty mouthed coward … and little bitch wimp.” Another deemed me a “pathetic liar.”
What’s wrong with this picture and what does it have to do with the demise of the AJC?
For starters, those who post e-mails to the AJC anonymously or through screen names need to beware. The AJC can find out who you are or at least find out the company you work for and come after you and your boss. That fact should do wonders for the free flow of comments between AJC reporters and their readers, a key component of the AJC’s strategy to successfully move from print to electronic.
Why doesn’t the AJC follow the best practices of other major metropolitan newspapers and screen inappropriate content before publishing it? And, if they are screening, why would the AJC give voice to such blatantly libelous letters?
I’ve thought of suing the AJC for libel, but I would much prefer to see the organization apply to its electronic version the same journalistic standards it uses in the print version.
Surely some of these electronic comments would never have been published in the print version.
By publishing these tirades, the AJC is discouraging thoughtful readers from participating in the very electronic forums that the paper hopes will help it make a successful transition to the Web. It seems to me that if the AJC continues down this path, it risks reducing its readership to jerks like LAC and Whammer, hardly a long-term recipe for success.
And as
Mirtle simply said in his post on the subject, shouldn't Whammer's comments have made it painfully obvious they weren't those of someone of Levenson's stature?
http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/ ... omment-869Who's up for recruiting some Thrashers fans to OTP?
_________________
Injustice? Cobain died and Eddy Fucking Vedder lived to haunt us with his shitty fucking voice, trite lyrics and his Eddy Vedderness.
- Ancient Chinese Proverb
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
