18 Comments

1. Terrye:

maybe she could do a follow up article entitled “The Third Reich without the Rancor.”

Mar 4, 2005 - 2:11 pm 2. Kevin P:

Roger:

Demick’s problem isn’t that she presented the government of North Korea’s viewpoint, it’s that she presenented as the opinion of a “buisnesman” when she very well knows that the gentleman who was qouted was spouting government approved propaganda. She also didn’t give her readers any context. When the Korean agent blamed the breakdown of the Albright deal on Bush she could have mentioned that the fact that the Koreans were caught building the nukes underground, that was the core of the energy supply agreement and when they broke the agreement the promise to supply energy was null and void. Did she even ask the Korean any questions? The Times could have just given the Government free space to print their views and not given the impression that this was just the opinion of some random North Korean. Demick dressed up propaganda as journalism.

Mar 4, 2005 - 2:30 pm 3. Curmudgeon:

Say, Roger;

The comment function on your previous post (Et Tu, Apple) isn’t working. I had a semi-serious comment, but more importantly, I wanted to twit you about confusing “rein” and “reign”.

Mar 4, 2005 - 2:34 pm 4. Becky Swann:

Yep, I also wanted to comment on the previous post, but comments were not working, so I vented my frustration at my own site under First They Came for the Jews.

Mar 4, 2005 - 2:54 pm 5. calvinist:

I did think the article was appalling, but in this case Barbara Demick could have been better served by her editor.

Not that I have a strong opinion about her writing, but she makes a valid point that she has in the past covered some of the nastier points about No. Korea.

This is where an editor could take her material and give it context. The story could have been interesting if it was cast as what it was, the North Korea official line, as told by a “business man” stationed in Beijing.

It could actually make a good story if she delved into how No. Korea “business men” are often involved in counterfeiting, arms & drug smuggling as ways to get For Ex for the regime. The Wall St Journal had a great article on this two or three years ago.

So a good editor could have sent her draft back and said, go find out the back story on you “businessman”.

Mar 4, 2005 - 3:27 pm 6. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

But calvinist…don’t we keep hearing that the MSM is superior to bloggers precisiely because of all those editors?…

Mar 4, 2005 - 3:53 pm 7. calvinist:

I agree with you photoncourier. That’s what an editor SHOULD be doing. It’s what Demick’s editor FAILED to do.

Mar 4, 2005 - 4:07 pm 8. Sandy P:

Hugh just mentioned you on O’Reilly, Roger. I usually don’t watch him anymore, but was gone all day and am trying to catch up w/what’s going on in the world.

Is this a bug or a feature?

Mar 4, 2005 - 5:33 pm 9. liberator:

OFF TOPIC or, rather: previous topic.

Oddly, though I am signed in, I can not add a comment to the Apple post–the fields are simply not there in the comments. So I am putting it here.

–

Indeed, this is an NDA issue. Apple takes their non-disclosure agreements very seriously. It is one of the things that Steve Jobs tightened up when he returned to the company. All Apple employees are aware of the perils of violating this condition of employment.

Apple-geeks like me thrive on those rumor sites. Alas, in the last couple of years, reliable speculation and insider info has been limited.

I see all sides.

Apple users are excited to hear the info before the public releases. The company needs to protect its roadmap and other proprietary info. And while I understand the need/desire for reporters’ sources to be kept confidential, at the same time, I think we would all be better off if sources were transparent [there would be less back-stabbing and more straight shooting]. The on-line publishers are in an undefined area right now [and I hope they/we stay free of any regulation or restrictions--it is a libertarian dream come true].

At the same time, having been a business owner and founder of more than one company, as well as having developed intellectual property of my own, we are all better off when people honor these NDA agreements. Stable rule-sets, intellectual property laws, integrity, and civil justice structures to enforce them. This is one of the underpinnings of prosperity as America knows it.

I think Apple is completely right in this. And I hope whoever violated the NDA will be found and fired.

Mar 4, 2005 - 6:27 pm 10. rastajenk:

I don’t know about the Apple case, but I don’t think it’s premature to be concerned about the FEC considering blogs’ roles in future elections. When political appointees say things like,”weíll have a great discussion about what we should and shouldnít do,” I think it’s fair to assume, if not the worst, at least something not good.

Mar 4, 2005 - 7:21 pm 11. richard mcenroe:

Look, this was a natural mistake. Demick got suckered by the NK official in charge of the candycane mountains and soda pop rivers. This is what happens when you take a contact referral from Sean Penn…

Did she mention the kite flying?

Mar 4, 2005 - 8:53 pm 12. Mike G in San Diego:

OK, I’m probably being naive here … but is it possible that Demick’s story originally did have the context, but the piece was “improved” by a helpful editor to become the jewel the Times published? If that’s what happened, I doubt that Demick would feel comfortable making a public statement to the effect of “Jeez, don’t blame me, guys — the editor screwed it up!”

When I read the piece, I got the feeling that a couple of explanatory paragraphs were missing — removed rather than never put in. In particular, I doubt that the headline was hers. So where did that “Without the Rancor” business come from?

Mar 4, 2005 - 11:28 pm 13. Gary Rosen:

I suspect the explanation for her article is rather simple – the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the LA Times. Recently I read an article in the LAT on Syria that was basically one long apologia for its repellent, brutal rulers. Apparently the LAT has never met a murdering dictator it didn’t like. Of course, Syria has the added luster of promoting the slaughter of innocent Jews through its Palestinian proxies.

Mar 5, 2005 - 1:04 am 14. David Thomson:

“Say, Roger;

The comment function on your previous post (Et Tu, Apple) isn’t working. I had a semi-serious comment, but more importantly, I wanted to twit you about confusing “rein” and “reign”.”

Me too, so here it is:

ìPerhaps I have this one wrong.î

Nobodyís perfect. You do indeed have this one wrong. Apple has every moral and legal right to protect its proprietary information. These individuals appear to be nothing less than criminals. They should not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment.

Mar 5, 2005 - 6:25 am 15. David Thomson:

ìOK, I’m probably being naive here … but is it possible that Demick’s story originally did have the context, but the piece was “improved” by a helpful editor to become the jewel the Times published?î

Possible? This seems like the most likely explanation to me. Journalists are sometimes utterly appalled by their editorís decisions. They can barely recognize their own work.

Mar 5, 2005 - 6:31 am 16. Knucklehead:

I have no clue how comments are getting into the Et tu, Apple thread but I agree with those who express sympathy with Apple’s position here – assuming that what happened was a “leak” of IP. Apple must protect it’s IP and enforce NDA agreements or the IP will cease to be theirs.

As others have mentioned neither the MSM nor bloggers are “protected” when it comes to their sources if it can be shown that the sources were engaged in an illegal activity.

Mar 5, 2005 - 8:56 am 17. Kevin P:

Roger:

I have been racking my brains in trying to figure out why the LAT is suddenly printing these soft soap renditions of North Korea. The only rational I can think of is that instead of just reporting the news the Times is trying to influence the news makers into resuming the one on one negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea.

North Korea is such a miserable government that they can’t quite come out and portray them in a positive light but they seem to be trying to portray the country as willing to negotiate. Of course North Korea wants to end the multi party talks so they can pin the failure soley on the US and President Bush is not that stupid.They can say anything they want to the US rep at these talks and the only reason they want the other countries out of the talks is so they can manipulate the idiot elites at the bi-coastal editorial boards at the twin Times. The Albright method was a proven failure but the schmucks at the Times want Bush to try it all over again. Thats the same as someone buying stock in a new oil company started by Ken Lay.

Mar 5, 2005 - 11:51 am 18. Mike G in San Diego:

“Journalists are sometimes utterly appalled by their editorís decisions. They can barely recognize their own work. ”

Heh. That’s what prompted my comment in the first place. I’m a science writer by trade; I have a strong background in the fields that I cover and I care about getting the facts straight. I could tell you horror stories about what my editors have done …

Mar 5, 2005 - 2:47 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: